What are your thoughts?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601645_pf.html

I think that this is a interesting article. There are some valid points that are brought out. I agree with these two, and I feel that as long as the main voice of the Democratic party comes from the extreme liberal side, that the majority of people will shy away. I am going to throw a few more points out...

1) As long as you have Michael Moore sitting next to President Carter at any democratic event, that will put a negative image in the party. He is recognized by many as a person who makes millions of dollars in a country that he publically bashes while speaking overseas. I think that he actually causes more of the repubican base to come out and vote than he brings faces to the Democratic side.

2) This last election, there was a HUGE effort by the left to encourage young voters. This has proven to be a waste of resources. For the amount of time and effort used, the percentage of turnout is minimal. Most 18-21 year old kids have more important things to do then vote... like having a beer.

3) The democrats take for granted that they are the "party of the minorities". As stated in the article, many of the hispanic vote goes Republican. While I could be wrong, I think this is due to the fact that many are Catholic. In addition, when the Democratic party is known to have supporters like Louis Farakan out there making off the wall statements like the levies in New Orleans were actually Blown-up to flood out the black man.. then that also is a negative.

4) In the last election, Kerry had many votes that he got mainly because he was the lesser of two evils. People voted for him just because they despised Bush. Well, next election, there will not be a George Bush to hate.

5) Hillary Rodham Clinton..

Overall, there is the mentality of the far left also. It was great to hear people saying that if Bush was re-elected that they were moving out of the country. Well, they are still here, and still making movies. All these promises that are once again unfullfilled. You still get singers that are not even from this country making songs about "thier sweet little neocon". I think Jagger should worry about his own countries politics.

I also think the Republicans need to look at themselves also. I agree the people like Pat Robertson needs to disappear. They also need to make sure that the next Presidental candidate is not named Bush, and does not have a bad hand that shows weakness (even if it is not there). Unless the Republicans choose a really weak person for the next elections.. I still predict a win...

As long as the Democratic party is the party of exclusion and litmus tests, they will struggle.

I see some light at the end of this very dark tunnel. All of the division that Bush has wrought on this country is coming to a head. Average people don't like it, blue or red. The divisiveness has served to bring most people closer to center, from left or right. Which ever party produces a moderate like McCain or I can't think of a mod dem, will probably win a landslide. Which ever party has their moderate candidate avoid divisive issues like gays, abortion, ten commandments, prayer, id, etc and focus on real issues like border security, spending/deficits, national security foreign and domestic will surely win a landslide. I hope that people can clear the smoke screen and get to work on what is really important to the future prosperity of this great country. And it all starts with unity, not division.

Add:
We are going to see a very large shift in political attitudes over the winter. I have read reports that say prices for natural gas, heating oil, and electricity are going to jump anywhere from 30% to 70%. This is going to be the back breaker for many people. People are going to realize they got a snow job with all the political slight of hand while the real economy/energy problems spiral out of control. 84% of American households make under $100k. 55% of American households make under $50k. These energy cost will effect everyone up to $100k.

It quite ironic to hear so many conservative posters on this board and others be so haughty and arrogant. These energy costs wil hit you too. Do they think that all the have to do is show their con card to get lower prices or something? I hope you all enjoy having a $300 electricity bill and a $200 natural gas bill. Cheers!

Lots of things to say about this, first about the article itself, then about shanno's thoughts on it. To start, why vote for a Democrat if that Democrat is just a Republican in sheep's clothing? If you're a Democrat due to having liberal values, why sacrifice those values in favor of candidates that -- if elected -- won't act in accordance with your beliefs? "To go with the lesser of two evils" isn't very satisfying (as we saw last election).

While Democrats may rely on moderates more than Republicans do, the real key is to energize their base, provide clear messages that resonate with voters (and aren't BS), and provide strong candidates. Kerry was a weak candidate, and he still came close to winning the election. In large part, this was due to Rove's excellent and unscrupulous strategizing, the introduction of 'gay marriage' as a hotbutton issue to galvanize the far right, Kerry's decision not to defend himself against the swift-boating, and Kerry's rather unremarkable campaigning. And 2000 was even closer.

Congress is another matter, for another post, but I expect the Dems will make major inroads in the Senate (and perhaps the House as well) in 2006 and 2008.
1) As long as you have Michael Moore sitting next to President Carter at any democratic event, that will put a negative image in the party. He is recognized by many as a person who makes millions of dollars in a country that he publically bashes while speaking overseas. I think that he actually causes more of the repubican base to come out and vote than he brings faces to the Democratic side.
I think Moore has more influence overseas than in the US. He's able to be heard and can get passes to just about any shindig he'd like to attend but is hardly a monolith of credibility or a Democratic spokesman. Your last sentence might be right; I'd be interested in post-election poll results regarding Moore's influence on voters.
2) This last election, there was a HUGE effort by the left to encourage young voters. This has proven to be a waste of resources. For the amount of time and effort used, the percentage of turnout is minimal. Most 18-21 year old kids have more important things to do then vote... like having a beer.[/qutoe]
Actually, I believe young voters turned out in higher numbers than usual (as a whole, 2004 saw an increase in voter turnout). Usually, large turnouts favor Democrats, but the Repubs had a highly motivated base, especially among evangelicals. Even if young voters didn't turn out in high numbers, it's still worthwile to attempt to engage them. They won't be young forever.
[quote]3) The democrats take for granted that they are the "party of the minorities". As stated in the article, many of the hispanic vote goes Republican. While I could be wrong, I think this is due to the fact that many are Catholic. In addition, when the Democratic party is known to have supporters like Louis Farakan out there making off the wall statements like the levies in New Orleans were actually Blown-up to flood out the black man.. then that also is a negative.
Osgiliath is unhappy with Bush's immigration policies, but they're crafted by Rove to appeal to Hispanics, and Catholicism may play a role as well. Louis Farrakhan is essentially irrelevant; Pat Robertson has far and away more influence, and is hardly alone in prominence among the looney right. The left has crazies, too, but IMO the right's crazies have far far more influence in the party (though many of their policies, like the anti-gay marriage amendment, have been ignored by Bush).
4) In the last election, Kerry had many votes that he got mainly because he was the lesser of two evils. People voted for him just because they despised Bush. Well, next election, there will not be a George Bush to hate.
This is quite true, but it really depends on who picks up the flag. A McCain /Guiliani combo would be difficult to defeat despite losing evangelical support, while a Sen. Brownback candidate would drive moderates away. Likewise, while I think a lot of Hillary-hate is unjustified, I don't find her a strong candidate, and Biden is worse. Wesley Clark might work out, especially if he can get someone like Brian Scwheitzer (Gov-MT) on the ticket. Edwards is a nice guy, but has too much of the yokel about him to garner mass support, I think (just my impression, though).

It also depends on the results of investigations into DeLay, Frist, the administration, the Ohio GOP, etc and if the public comes to perceive the GOP as a culture of corruption (much like the Dems were painted in '94).
5) Hillary Rodham Clinton..
She gets a lot of unjustified hate, and there are a lot of people who would never vote for her (making her a less than desirable candidate), but truth is her voting record is quite centrist, she has a reputation for reaching across the aisle, she's been working with Newt Gingrich in crafting various initiatives (and these two should be mortal enemies), she's popular in NY, and she's had a lot of success in framing issues (generally a Republican strong suit).
Overall, there is the mentality of the far left also. It was great to hear people saying that if Bush was re-elected that they were moving out of the country.
I think it hyperbolic to equate statements from a couple high profile individuals as being "the mentality of the far left," and referencing a Rolling Stones song is even more a non sequitur. Didn't Clint Black play at the Pentagon's "freedom walk" a few weeks ago? Also irrelevant.
I also think the Republicans need to look at themselves also. I agree the people like Pat Robertson needs to disappear.
I'm less concerned by Robertson than Frist, DeLay, Santorum, Brownback, Coburn, Rove, and so on. I think the Repubs have over-reached. Even among their base they polled badly with Schiavo and Social Security, the investigations and indictments don't look good, fiscal conservatives have nothing to cheer about except low taxes we'll have to pay for later, and moderates are nervous of the party's Dobsonites. The fractures are starting to show, and if the GOP can't balance their fiscal and social conservative wings, they'll crack.
They also need to make sure that the next Presidental candidate is not named Bush, and does not have a bad hand that shows weakness (even if it is not there). Unless the Republicans choose a really weak person for the next elections.. I still predict a win...
Too early to tell. If McCain and Guiliani run, the Repubs will probably win unless the evangelicals rebel and the Dems have a decent candidate. If not, and the Dems have a reasonable candidate, public backlash over deficits, Iraq, corruption, and so on could produce a Dem president.

Right now, though, 2008 is still far away, and 2006 could be interesting.

Assuming that the Republicans don't say or do anything to mess up their current arrangements, the female/Hispanic/religious vote will remain red. I can't wait to see who our candidates are for the next election. Should be one helluva ride...
I hope that each party can find a way to "control their mavericks" so that the American people can discuss functional, operational issues. It's amusing to have a couple Meet the Press panels that look more like an episode of Politically Incorrect, but as a people we need to be looking for someone who doesn't adopt P.T. Barnum (http://who2.com/ptbarnum.html) marketing techniques.

Wow, I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I disagree with much of this article. If anything, our fatal flaw over the last several years has been trying to be 'Republican light' - our candidates have focused more on not trying to offend anyone than standing up for much of anything, especially not on issues that matter to most citizens (such as making a living wage, the massive kleptocracy going on in health care, meaningful education reform, energy policy, etc), so what, really, has there been for folks to rally around?

People of all political stripes are starting to smell that something is rotten in Denmark. *Neither* party is serving the interests of the people in this day and age; they're serving the major corporations and lobbyists who contribute to their re-election coffers. I've always felt that Democrats *should* be better able to raise a stink about this, as more of these are traditionally 'our issues', but, seriously, where has the outrage been at the coopting of our government 'of the people' by the bottomless lobbying coffers of the few? The Republican leadership has been masterful at distracting the public from issues that *actually* affect them by invoking patriotism and/or religious zeal, and the Democrats... haven't been very masterful at anything except a) running around like chickens with their heads cut off and b) doing a poor-mans imitation of the Republicans while suffering under the ludicrous delusion that that will gain them seats.

The current energy crisis should hit Americans in the only place it seems to register: their pocketbooks. They will *demand* that something be done about it, and it will throw our current laughable energy policy into sharp focus. My personal feeling is that economic stresses, along with the recent exposures the public has had to just how systemic cronyism is in the current administration, will finally trip the outrage scales of red, as well as blue voters, and we'll see a major shakeup this time around which *could* actually lead to meaningful reform/rethinking about just how 'free' (in a *financial* sense) free speech is, and who should be watching our collective henhouse...

In regards to the previous election, it's my opinion that the Democratic base *was* energized, and had enormous potential to awaken the electorate in the last election, but Kerry was... about as exciting as watching paint dry. Our *candidate* took much of the wind out of our sails in this past election, which was a real shame, but in the end, I think that Faervas, in our conversation immediately after the election, may have been right: the people *needed* to see the ugly underbelly of this administration fully exposed, Bush *needed* to be re-elected, in order for folks to get a sense of just why this mode of operation is *bad* for democracy, and demand more fundamental change than just whether our next president is Republican or Democratic.

Regards,
Nydia

It quite ironic to hear so many conservative posters on this board and others be so haughty and arrogant. These energy costs wil hit you too. Do they think that all the have to do is show their con card to get lower prices or something? I hope you all enjoy having a $300 electricity bill and a $200 natural gas bill. Cheers!



Explain how this is the fault of the current administration... Last I checked, the federal government did not control the cost of gas or oil.

Now on to Thor.

I agree wholeheartedly with the sheep in wolf's clothing. I also have never been a middle of the road guy. But I am also not an advocate of the far reaches of any party. Whether you hate him or like him, you knew what you were getting with Bush. The same cannot be said about Kerry, or for that matter at times McCain. They both have tried to cater to the other side for strategic reasons.

As for the last election, there as plenty of bashing on both sides. Yes, Rove did a great job. But there was also plently of tries by the media and Move On.org to bash Bush. Bush just took the offensive instead of the defensive.

He's able to be heard and can get passes to just about any shindig he'd like to attend but is hardly a monolith of credibility or a Democratic spokesman

Oh.. but he is. Unfortunetly many Americans, whether they are Right or Left, listen and watch the TV and Radio and get thier opinions. We have had this debate before, but actors and singers have a voice that many Americans do not. For example, saying that Michael Moore is not a voice is like saying that Rush Limbaugh has zero influence also. How many people watched Farenhit 9/11 ( I know I mispelled it.. to lazy to look it up). Whether or not you like it.. he is a voice.. a ugly one.. but one regardless.

As far as what group of nuts have more influence in the parties? I will argue that it goes both ways. George Soros and the nuts that follow contribute alot of money to that party, and if the Dem nominee blew them off, they would loss a majority of thier propaganda and support. Just as the Robertson's could influence that side.

I think the reason Hillary gets so much hate is that she is fake. Many politicans are fake, but she takes it to a new level. She is so transparent that it hurts. She wanted to win a Senate seat. So, she moves to New york, because she cares about the people of that State. Please.... She knew nothing of Bill's affairs, and looks like a victim. Come now... she is a VERY intelligent woman, and had more influence than any first lady in a LONG time.


McCain and Guilliani would be a strong team, but they also have dents in thier armor. They have done things that have pissed off the base, and would receive some critism.

I would like to see your reasons why 06 will be interesting. I am thinking just the opposite. What these appointments of Judges has proven is that the Democratic leadership is a bunch of whining babies. Threating to philibuster, voting no on a clearly qualified candidate in Roberts (Kennedy, Biden, Reid... ect). With spokesman like Harry Reid and Palosi, many are just getting a worse opinion.

There has been a serious polarization of American politics in the last 15 years, and I think it's going to backfire if it hasn't already. Most people might have left or right leaning preference, but only on one or two issues and in general function as moderates. It's getting exceptionally hard to find a candidate (for any national office) with a sane cross-section of platform issues and even harder to find one that would consider himself a civil servant.

If the Democrats had run Clark last election, they likely would have won. Equally I'd rather see McCain or Clark on the ticket regardless of party simply because they seem to be on the increasingly small list of public figures that aren't kowtowing to some loony group or recently escaped from the asylum themselves.

As long as the Democratic party is the party of exclusion and litmus tests, they will struggle.

I just wanted to add that I found *this* really funny. Just due to my own beliefs (in separation of church and state, being able to love whom I choose, in the right to control my own body), I've felt 'excluded', and 'litmus-tested', right out of the Republican party. Do you really wish to argue whose tent is bigger? :)

Regards,
Nydia

"making a living wage"

File that with "working class" -- it has no real meaning.

"the massive kleptocracy going on in health care"

Here we can agree. Meaningful tort reform needs to be done now. The trial lawyers have been stealing for many years in the health care industry -- see, e.g., asbestos and breast implant litigations. The class action reform bill was a good step toward stopping the theft. Let's see more.

"meaningful education reform"

Good luck getting any reform past the teacher's unions. However, I agree that vouchers would be a good step toward meaningful reform.

"energy policy"

I agree that ANWR needs to be opened up for exploration and this country needs to start developing its own energy resources. Let's relax environmental laws that have hampered our ability to do that.

I can't think of a mod dem

Evan Bayh would be a perfect moderate dem to run for president. He was a democratic governor in Indiana which is predominantly a repbulican state. He works well with both sides of the aisle. Indiana under his governorship was the first state in the union to balance their budget. He was able to bring new industry to Indiana (Suburu/Isuzu in Lafayette, IN as an example). He's now a senator, so he has federal experience now.

I think an ideal election, to have someone appealing from both sides would be John McCain vs. Evan Bayh. We'd get two "honest politicians" that would speak about the issues and give us a legitimate choice.

Republicans accept pro-choice and pro-life. Look at the log cabin Republicans for the acceptance of love who you want. Republicans accept evangelical christians to ardent separatists. I'll argue all day long whose tent is bigger because there is no question.


Just look at Arlen Specter a rabid pro-choice REPUBLICAN. Think you'd see an equally rabid pro-life Democrat? Hell no or if you did it wouldn't be for long and he or she wouldn't be chairman of the judiciary committee.

I'm too lazy to quote here, but Furtivus, just keep spouting the party line and selling yourself down the river :). Tort reform is an infintesimal drop in the bucket of health care costs, and you know it. We can't drill our way out of the fact that we are *running out of fossil fuels*, and policy change, namely developing alternatives to fossil fuels and conserving what we have, is the only sane policy - going on an easter egg hunt in ANWR, and destroying one of the last pristine stretches of wilderness on the planet, isn't going to alter that inescapable truth.

The Log Cabin guys don't get spit from your party except contempt, (and I actually know some of these guys, and curiously, they're almost all white males, not to stereotype, but it is interesting) although I admire what they are doing. And ask your typical athiest/secular humanist fiscal conservative how they feel about government money going to fund *faith-based* schools and agencies. As far as the pro-life issue goes, the difference here is that while *many* Democrats are pro-life with regard to their own lives and choices, the great majority support that this is a matter of *individual* conscience and don't seek to legislate the deep moral choices of others on this issue. But I'm getting away from the heart of the matter here...

Although I've voted Democratic or Independent my entire life, I'm more concerned at this juncture about wresting control of *our* government away from the depths of corruption to which it has sunk, than to what tag the candidate who is willing to do that wears. Truthfully, if Mc Cain had received his party's nomination in 2000, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat over Gore the focus group whore. Are you as willing to open your eyes and look at the people who serve you as critically and ask yourself: Do these people really answer to *my* interests, and in a way that provides for a stable future for myself and my children?

Regards,
Nydia

From shanno:
Whether you hate him or like him, you knew what you were getting with Bush.
Bush did a good job of promoting that straight-shooter image, but I think it's fizzled considerably since the election. Consider the anti-gay marriage amendment that was such a rallying point for the evangelicals and how it's become legislative vaporware.
Yes, Rove did a great job. But there was also plently of tries by the media and Move On.org to bash Bush.
It's Move On's job to bash Bush, just as it was every conservative outfit's job to bash Kerry. The media...*laugh*, suffice to say that the swift boating never suffered from lack of airtime. But really, Kerry wasn't a great candidate, and still came close to winning.
Oh.. but he is. Unfortunetly many Americans, whether they are Right or Left, listen and watch the TV and Radio and get thier opinions. We have had this debate before, but actors and singers have a voice that many Americans do not.
Difference being, Moore's influence is primarily confined to the the time around the release of one of his projects. Limbaugh (and the rest of conservative talk radio) are constantly doing their thing. As for actors and singers...well yes, the next thing you know, the Democrats will not only elect an actor for governor, they'll have him talk at their convention! Maybe they can have Clint Black sing at the freedom march outside. ;)
I would like to see your reasons why 06 will be interesting. I am thinking just the opposite.[/qutoe]
Vulnerable Republicans outnumber vulnerable Dems. It's a stretch to think the Dems could retake the Senate (though they have an outside chance), but they'll almost certainly recover some ground. I think a lot of people would like to see multi-party involvement in government again, maybe utilize that whacky checks and balances system we've heard so much about.

From Furtivus:
[quote]Republicans accept pro-choice and pro-life. Look at the log cabin Republicans for the acceptance of love who you want. Republicans accept evangelical christians to ardent separatists
Now *this* is comedy. Yeah, the existence of gay Republicans means that Republicans accept gays! And they're so good about showing it, too. All those hurricanes this year and only one got blamed on gays.

The Dems problem isn't that they aren't big tent. It's that inside the big tent are a crapload of little tents that lack coordination and the realization that it's okay to vote for a Democrat who disagrees with your position, given that a Democrat majority is more likely to support your position in the long run.

The problem with the Democrats is very simple. Lack of talent.
They have been in power so long they ignored their farm leagues. The rise of the Republicans in the congress coincided with the retirement of many Democrats who held seats forever.
Thus the provision in the Contract With America, that Republicans would serve 6 years and go home. (Only 1 has followed through) Unlike the Democrats who were phasing out that had been there 30+ years.
The new blood had energized the Republican Party. Whereas Democrats lost the drive as most of their major objectives have been realized.
The driving goal of Democrats had been the transformation of American from a segregated society of the 1960s in the worlds most open and multiculture society that we enjoy today. We got as far as government could take us. Yet Democrats are still trying to draw from a political well that has long since dried up. This is changing slowly, as the last remenants of Democrats fade from office more spots open up for people like Barak Obama, John Edwards and other new faces that have to reshape and remold the party.
What they need to do is shed some of the old baggage and streamline the party and the message.

The problems facing the Republicans are different. While the Democrats in rebuilding phase, Republicans are in collapse phase. The matrimony of the Conservative movement to the evangelicals is at its fruition and the Evangelicals are demanding the piper be paid.
By appointing Roberts and Meirs, Bush has basically said "No" Bush has shown himself to be a traditional conservative who only talks to the far right, never delivering.
Bush as the only electable leader in the party on a national scale (besides McCain, whom the far right detests) is basically setting the stage for an Alexandrian faction war ("Let my empire go to he who is the strongest") 2006 will be an interesting year.

I'm too lazy to quote here, but Furtivus, just keep spouting the party line and selling yourself down the river :). Tort reform is an infintesimal drop in the bucket of health care costs, and you know it. We can't drill our way out of the fact that we are *running out of fossil fuels*, and policy change, namely developing alternatives to fossil fuels and conserving what we have, is the only sane policy - going on an easter egg hunt in ANWR, and destroying one of the last pristine stretches of wilderness on the planet, isn't going to alter that inescapable truth.

The Log Cabin guys don't get spit from your party except contempt, (and I actually know some of these guys, and curiously, they're almost all white males, not to stereotype, but it is interesting) although I admire what they are doing. And ask your typical athiest/secular humanist fiscal conservative how they feel about government money going to fund *faith-based* schools and agencies. As far as the pro-life issue goes, the difference here is that while *many* Democrats are pro-life with regard to their own lives and choices, the great majority support that this is a matter of *individual* conscience and don't seek to legislate the deep moral choices of others on this issue. But I'm getting away from the heart of the matter here...

Although I've voted Democratic or Independent my entire life, I'm more concerned at this juncture about wresting control of *our* government away from the depths of corruption to which it has sunk, than to what tag the candidate who is willing to do that wears. Truthfully, if Mc Cain had received his party's nomination in 2000, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat over Gore the focus group whore. Are you as willing to open your eyes and look at the people who serve you as critically and ask yourself: Do these people really answer to *my* interests, and in a way that provides for a stable future for myself and my children?

Regards,
Nydia

Nydia your no different then us ardent conservatives really. You spout your talking points and we spout ours. As far as tort reform it goes alot farther then you might think. That and immigration(HUGE BUSH ERROR) See I can admit a Bush error..=) It costs billions paying for illegal mirgrant health and services. I seriously hope Tom Tancredo runs from my state of Colorado. Can he win? No, but he would open up large sections of the voting populace that feel the same as I do.

Anwar is a red hearing. The real money and energy to be made are the shale fields here in Colorado. There is enough to totaly bleed off the supplies coming in from the god forsaken middle-east. And with energy and technology the way it is it is now in a position that is is economically fesable to drill for it.

You ask if I am willing to open up my eyes and look at the people who server my interests. To that I have, and this administration does. Now everyone please continue with the Osg is a Sheeple/mushroom coments please... They amuse me so.

The problem with the Democrats is very simple. Lack of talent.
They have been in power so long they ignored their farm leagues. The rise of the Republicans in the congress coincided with the retirement of many Democrats who held seats forever.
Thus the provision in the Contract With America, that Republicans would serve 6 years and go home. (Only 1 has followed through) Unlike the Democrats who were phasing out that had been there 30+ years.
The new blood had energized the Republican Party. Whereas Democrats lost the drive as most of their major objectives have been realized.
The driving goal of Democrats had been the transformation of American from a segregated society of the 1960s in the worlds most open and multiculture society that we enjoy today. We got as far as government could take us. Yet Democrats are still trying to draw from a political well that has long since dried up. This is changing slowly, as the last remenants of Democrats fade from office more spots open up for people like Barak Obama, John Edwards and other new faces that have to reshape and remold the party.
What they need to do is shed some of the old baggage and streamline the party and the message.

The problems facing the Republicans are different. While the Democrats in rebuilding phase, Republicans are in collapse phase. The matrimony of the Conservative movement to the evangelicals is at its fruition and the Evangelicals are demanding the piper be paid.
By appointing Roberts and Meirs, Bush has basically said "No" Bush has shown himself to be a traditional conservative who only talks to the far right, never delivering.
Bush as the only electable leader in the party on a national scale (besides McCain, whom the far right detests) is basically setting the stage for an Alexandrian faction war ("Let my empire go to he who is the strongest") 2006 will be an interesting year.

The Republicans are not in a state of collapse. Bush can't run again so of course the people who can run again for there seats are fast to stand and question. When they go for re-ellection they will start up with many of the same ideas presently on the tables accorss the this nation, but they will be wrapped in pretty new boxes to sell to the people. There idea will be so much better then the current administration yet under there cover it's allthe same. Same goes for the LSD's(Liberal/Socialist/Democrats).

I am not too sure that what you say LL is entirely accurate, but you do have alot of good points. I think the start of the Democratic decline was when Newt Gingrich came up with the "Contract with America". While not everything he promised worked, they at least did exactly what they told the people they would do if elected.


Say what you will.. that was a stroke of genius on his part.

Thor,

You talk about Arnold or Clint Black, but there is a huge difference here. I do not remember seeing either of these two getting air time because they are crying and saying that we are ruining the future of our children. (well, since Donald Sutherland is a political figure on TV.. he should know). I do not see Arnold appearing on a TV show about a female president that makes it appear the Republican's currently in power are evil and only care about themselves. This is called social engineering, and it does have an effect.

L2 hit the nail on the head. Most of the 'old guard' in the Democratic party are in their 60s, 70s, and beyond (Sen. Byrd :) ). One of the reasons that the Dems continue to latch on to Hillary is that, despite all her negative baggage, she is very shrewd (cutting your political teeth as a Nixon aide doesn't hurt ;) ) and one of the few movers and shakers in the party *under 65*. It will take the next generation coming into its own, and speaking its message clearly and confidently, (not trying to be Republican light and seeming almost ashamed of its message), for the Dems to regain control in Congress.

Bill Clinton, love him or hate him (or both :) ), managed to combine fiscal responsibility with respect for human and civil rights *without* seeming or becoming impotent or 'Republican light' despite his frustrations with the Republican-controlled Congress and will be vindicated to a considerable degree by history despite his human failings, imho. Having come from a single-parent, working class family, he really did understand the *people* he served despite his relentless ambition and put his whole heart into doing so; if only our next president at least has *been* to America, so to speak, we'll be a lot better off than we are now...

Regards,
Nydia

"realization that it's okay to vote for a Democrat who disagrees with your position"

Hence the Democrats are the party of exclusion. Republicans will and do vote and nominate candidates representing a wide range of conflicting positions. Democrats are single issue/litmus test voters. Any challenge to the extreme left position (universal health care, abortion on demand, draconian environmental protections) is seen as becoming "Republican-lite" and you are excluded. Name one leading candidate for the Democratic presidential ticket who is strongly pro-life. You could name two Republican pro-choice candidates.

Nydia...


I cannot believe you even mention Byrd... Democrats, the party of minorities, but yet you mention the former KKK member himself.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd talk about a "good ole boy"

shanno
You talk about Arnold or Clint Black, but there is a huge difference here. I do not remember seeing either of these two getting air time because they are crying and saying that we are ruining the future of our children. (well, since Donald Sutherland is a political figure on TV.. he should know). I do not see Arnold appearing on a TV show about a female president that makes it appear the Republican's currently in power are evil and only care about themselves. This is called social engineering, and it does have an effect.
You must watch more TV than I do; I missed out on the crying. So, the difference is that one actor is acting on a TV show, and the other actor is the governor of one of our largest states. Somehow, the TV actor is socially engineering society while the the other actor's actual governance and speechmaking at a political convention isn't. Interesting...

Furtivus, abortion is not the sole governing issue in the country today (and hell, anyone can be a candidate, let's see how the pro-choicers are doing after the primaries). Neither are the millions of Americans without healthcare, the desire of social conservatives to regulate women's bodies, or "environment courtesy of Exxon" deregulations, though they all deserve attention.

Well after Bush gets his third nomination for SCJ our work will be complete.....

It was not TV that Donald was on.. www.drudgereport.com/flash4ds.htm . But here is another difference. Arnold ran for and WON the ticket in California. He is putting his reputation on the line and actually making a difference (whether it is good or bad). But what Sutherland and all the other mouths on TV are doing is using thier fame to try and convice people that they are experts. I do not see BBC or any other news source coming and interviewing you (who appears to be more intelligent than most actors and singers), or anyone on this board.

It is like the people who bitch about how slow or inept the Red Cross or any other voluntary organization is, but yet has NEVER volunteered to put time aside and help out. Or people that bitch about the military but will not hesitate to sit at home and enjoy the freedom that was provided for them. I am not accusing anyone here of doing that, but there are people out there like that.

going on an easter egg hunt in ANWR, and destroying one of the last pristine stretches of wilderness on the planet

Bullshit! I will explain more later, but bullshit flag called on the play, please do not mistake the vast expanse of mud, moss and tundra for some giant old growth forest.

But what Sutherland and all the other mouths on TV are doing is using thier fame to try and convice people that they are experts. I do not see BBC or any other news source coming and interviewing you (who appears to be more intelligent than most actors and singers), or anyone on this board.
You're referring to a TV show's script as if it were some kind of propaganda dissemination tool. I've never seen the show -- and don't plan to -- so could you provide some specific examples? Can you provide any demonstration of the show's effects on people's political perceptions? Does this show's effects, if they exist, matter in any way compared to the zillion other forums for discourse such as talk radio, O'Reilly Factor (and the like), the massive presence of political opinion online, etc.? Whatever the scriptwriter has put on paper, it strikes me as inconsequential compared to so much that's already out there.

Dear Shanno:

I mentioned Byrd not because of his past history, nor to cite him for anything specifically he has or has not done over his *very* long tenure in the Senate (or before it ever began) but because of his age; he is surely the 'old guard' of his party as much as Jesse Helms is of his. But since you brought him up, I think that the good he has done over his service to the country, overall, far outweighs his (not to be taken lightly) past; he is a very erudite scholar of democracy and has always served his conscience, and his constituency, whether or not that put him at odds with his party (the Clinton impeachment hearings, for example, perjury *meant* something to Byrd, regardless that it was about a personal affair that, arguably, should never have been investigated).

That's not why I felt the need to add to this thread again before passing out after a grueling week - I wanted to respond to the other portion of L2's post, and specifically his analysis of Bush's character and his recent Supreme Court selections.

Lleauric, I think you're barking up the wrong tree with regard to the reasoning behind Roberts and Miers. Bush clearly *isn't* an old school fiscal conservative; just look at his record over the past 6 years. Nor is he anti-evangelical, or unwilling to serve them; Harriet Miers *is* a fundamentalist Christian, having converted (which always amazes me when the missionaries come down here to 'convert' the Catholics - don't they believe in the same Jesus?) from Catholicism; Roberts is Catholic. It's just that, in my opinion, he's just not that sophisticated in his reasoning - he is continuing to operate, as he always has, by the 'buddy system'.

Bush got every job he's ever had in his life thanks to 'buddies' (including his current one), he used the same system to fill most of his appointments, and the one thing that Roberts and Miers have in common is that *they served the Bush family personally*. In this administration, *personal* loyalty (to the president or to the Bush family) has superseded all other considerations, including those of ideology, or competence for that matter. As Thor said in another thread, Bush is perfectly willing to give 'the finger' to the far religious right, not because he disagrees with them (indeed, if you buy the reports from the BBC, multiple sources are claiming that Bush told them that 'God told him' to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there's a whole lot of praying going on in the White house at the daily meetings), but because he operates from a different perspective - that 'it's not what you know, but who you know', and it's clear that he only trusts, and wishes to be surrounded with, personal friends and those who agree with him at all times, unless vouched for or suggested by someone else in the 'family' (including Cheney and the gang who gave *him* his job).

Regards,
Nydia

Dear Elemak:

Areas above the treeline in latitude, I hate to break it to you, including moss and tundra 'forests', are *still* wilderness, and that particular wilderness provides a primary calving ground for, and supports much of the world's caribou population (which, by the way, eat exclusively moss). Make sure *you* know the definition of 'wilderness' and what's actually up there before you start into your 'explanation' of why ANWR 'isn't' a vital wilderness area or at least an area for which the potential cost/benefit analysis of rooting around up there for oil falls far short... :)

Regards,
Nydia

Oh I'm sorry I had it confused with the umpteen thousand miles of other un-molested land, and where we are already drilling or where the pipeline is, and the caribou, moose, bears, lemmings, etc are at best marginally affected by it. Saying ANWR is the *last* stretch of pristine wilderness left in the world is absolutely stupid. I'll start a thread later when I have more time to dispell the wanton stupidity about ANWR and even include pretty pictures for those that just don't seem to understand that ANWR, and the area they want to drill in is only a very marginal part of the state.

Here's my thoughts...

If the Democrats are to recapture the White House, a couple of things would have to happen IMO.

1. They simply can't choose another candidate with a reputation for far left stances. It may come as a shock to some, but "liberals" and the far left do not comprise an outright majority in our country. They absolutely need someone more centrist in outlook who can capture not just the liberal votes but also some right of center. If they had put up nearly anyone else but Kerry or Dean, I think they would have won the last one. It will also help if the candidate is articulate yet able to connect with the average middle class American.

2. They have to hope the Republicans put up another substandard candidate, either with heavy ties to the current unpopular Bush administration or with an extreme right agenda. The Republicans have staked out a strong position in general that would have to be eroded by their own mistakes. Fortunately for the Democrats, those mistakes are out there.


The point was made earlier about wolf-in-sheep's clothing. I disagree completely. Ceding the "center" to the Republicans is the greatest mistake the Democrats have made. Slow gradual changes are much more palatable to a majority of Americans than wide swings to the right or left. Standing on a platform that encompasses and emphasizes every liberal goal at once (without compromise) to differentiate themselves turns off a huge number of voters (like myself) who agree with some but not all of those goals. More to the point, if you can't get elected, you can't realize *any* of those goals. It's far wiser to bend a little (to become electable) so you can at least implement some of your programs/policies. All or nothing usually nets you nothing.

It will also help if the candidate is articulate yet able to connect with the average middle class American.



It scares me that so many people voted for Bush because he represents a "regular guy, just like them." We are talking about the leader of the free world. You don't want a "regular guy" in that capacity. You want the most intelligent, comprehensive, articulate thinker available. John Kerry is light years ahead of Bush in intellect. I really do think there should be an IQ test required for voting eligibility. People who never watch news, never read the paper, never look at the internet, never speak a word about politics to anyone because they are too busy watching reality TV, but get some flyer the day before the election saying John Kerry hates Christians-vote for Bush, should be the last people on this earth that should be voting.

John Kerry is light years ahead of Bush in intellect.

Right, the guy who doesn't know how to throw a grenade, oops wait that was the VC who threw it...

Nothing upsets me more and dispalys anti patriotism than anyone disparaging any war veteran, especially a decorated one.

As much as I am sure many republicans would hate to admit it, Dubya was the Republican version of Slick Willie.......he took the center away from his opponent in the campaigns, and said those things people were needing to hear from their potential leader. In many respects, he seems like he is trying to be a combination of Clinton and Bush Sr. even now.

Clinton's big mistake was in not doing as Bush has done and simply refused to provide information that was not relevant; i.e. saying "It is none of your business whether I was unfaithful to my wife, as your charge is to investigate the Whitewater dealings". Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich both admitted their indiscretions, following their dogged pursuit of "getting" Clinton. I would be interested in the Vegas odds on Clinton being able to win the White House in the next election if he were allowed to run.

The Republican party has been the party in control for some time now, and we have a war in Afghanistan that was never completed before we rushed off to invade another country on false information, we have an economy that has wages not keeping pace with inflation and the housing market going beyond the means of a majority of first time home buyer wannabes, we have an energy crisis created as much by investor speculation as by the availability of resources and yet there was no intervention by the government to stop the reckless upward spiralling of oil prices (which with the Pres/Vice Pres both being oil men does raise an eyebrow), and now we have the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the inadequate federal response to the disaster and potential loss of billions of dollars due to the loss of the port used for most agricultural exports and the shrimping/fishing industry in the area. Not to mention the deficit that has skyrocketed due to seemingly unchecked spending by the fiscally responsible Republicans.

Yes, I think the 2006 elections will be very interesting, but only if we see some independant candidates rise up to offer an alternative to the two parties that have led us to the quagmire we have now.

McCain in '08 :D

One thing that disappoints me, L2, is that the Democratic Party shouldn't have ever gotten lax. We aren't talking about football teams where one trains harder than the other and finally wins the bowl game, we're talking about the lives of millions of people around the globe at stake -- not some ring. I was fairly disappointed with the Democrats and spent a year working for Nader (in 1999 to 2000) hoping to shock some sense into the party. Its taking far too long to wake up while I pay $3 a gallon for gas and what was worse, spend 6 months trying to finally find a steady job where I make more money than my expenses.

Its tragic to think that its taken this long for 60% of the country to realize Bush is screwing the pooch on our dime. Its even worse yet to think there's still 40% out there who've yet to wake up and crack a book or something.

And Malse, I couldn't have agreed with you more about Wesley Clark. I realized that with the "war" (though at that time it was mission accomplished and over I think) in Iraq we'd need someone with experience and training to get us out while preserving our domestic affairs and threw my vote his way during the primary. I'd love to see him run again.

Nothing upsets me more and dispalys anti patriotism than anyone disparaging any war veteran, especially a decorated one. The Irony of that statement, when made about John Kerry is astounding.

Kerry was a war veteran dumbass.

And Bush graduated from Yale, same as Kerry.

No shit and what is he doing here?
http://images.newsx.cc/News14Charlotte_Media/2004/10/7/images/0206-swift2.jpg

Oh yeah selling out his fellow Vietnam Vets, hence the irony, and a little more irony considering he's calling me un-patriotic...
*ahem* since some assclown who wouldn't leave his name asked...here are my medals

http://www.wall-locker.com/images/arcom.jpghttp://www.wall-locker.com/images/aam.jpg
http://www.wall-locker.com/images/ndsm.jpghttp://www.wall-locker.com/images/kcm.jpghttp://www.wall-locker.com/images/gwotsm.jpg
http://www.wall-locker.com/images/afrm.jpghttp://www.wall-locker.com/images/asr.jpghttp://www.wall-locker.com/images/natomk.jpg

oak leaf on the aam, and m device on the reserve medal, when I get finished with this next vacation I'll probably have more, you'll notice, no purple hearts. I know how to duck, and how to throw a grenade.

Sorry for getting sucked into flame bait.....

John Kerry is light years ahead of Bush in intellect.

You wouldn't be able to tell from their grade transcripts. They had nearly identical GPAs at Yale. Face it, both candidates were less than stellar in the intelligence department last election.

I honestly don't know who should run for the democrats in 2008. Maybe Obama. Clark seemed to me to be a little inexperienced in dealing with media, but he has time to learn the ropes so maybe he will have a shot. I think Hillary has too much baggage and really doesn't inspire confidence in her ability to implement her programs (the health care fiasco under her direction while Clinton was president comes to mind).

People dont give Bush enough credit.
He isnt stupid by any stretch of the imagination. He has created a cult of personality in the White House to such an extent that he could probably nominate his horse as SCJ, Caligula style, and people would rush to his defense. ("He KNOWS this horse, this horse has definite Pro Life leanings!")
He is however, extremely un curious. He doesnt seem to really have too much interest in what he doesnt know. Even more telling is that he seems to pick books that ratify his point of view, rather than challenge or enlight. He seems to take a quick survey of the situation and then make a decision based on gut instinct and moral compass. This is both a strength and a weakness. It belies a singlemindedness needed in times of wars but betrays the innovation needed to create peace. He would probably have been a absolutely brilliant battlefield commander. The utter devotion and loyalty he inspires in those under him and his remarkable ability to keep all the troops on the same page are hallmarks of amazing leadership. I imagine this why we are constantly reminded that we are "war". This president would be lost in a time of peace.

L2, I think you give a bit too much credit to Bush. My own opinion is that a) his handlers have crafted a particularly appealing image for him that resonates with the public; and b) his water carriers have realized that he isn't "all that" but are determined to facilitate that image to the very end in order to reap the rewards of their support. Bush clearly puts personal loyalty well ahead of other factors when it comes to positions and policy. ATM, Clark is my preferred Dem candidate. Gulor mentioned his media savvy as a possible counter, but hell, he's been a Fox news consultant; as a Dem that's perfect experience. Hillary and Biden wouldn't work for me, Obama is looking sharp but still young in my eyes, Edwards...bit of a yokel, Clark...right now I don't see a Dem that has the name recognition and appeal that he has (though I'm looking to Brian Scwheitzer in the future).

He isnt stupid by any stretch of the imagination.


Being the inarticulate, disingenuous, nepotistic shill of more cunning neocon idealogues doesn't require any stretching at all to be construed as stupidity.

The utter devotion and loyalty he inspires in those under him

This is generated as a side effect of his megalomanic paranoia. Mix that with silver spoon short guy syndrome and there he is.

Well....

In trying to be fair to both sides of the issue, I cannot logically come to the conclusion that POTUS (ANY POTUS) is dumb. I think people too often times misunderestimate Bush. It takes too much talent to rise that level. I think people need to recognize this mans strengths, because they are there.

The biggest mistake of his Presidency has been without a doubt Iraq.
But lets look at the failure here. It wasnt a failure to act or a failure of strong leadership. It wasnt even a failure of vision, if the process had gone better it WOULD have been the beacon of democracy people had hoped for in the Middle East.

The failures in Iraq can be placed square on the shoulders of Rumsfeld. The minimalist approach was an abject disaster. A double headed insurgency was allowed to take hold and establish deep roots. Now, Iraq is a launching pad for attacks on the US (the planning of the discovered Subway bombings was from Iraq)
Had we been able to secure the borders and installed some kind of massive rebuilding project without fear of terrorism... we had a chance. Had we correctly thought that we wouldnt have been treated like conquering heros, but an occupying force until we proved otherwise... we had a chance.
Its gone now.. AT BEST, we can hope to leave some duct taped fragile alliance on verge of civil war.
Iraq has more possibilty of being the nightmare scenario than the dream scenario.

I cannot logically come to the conclusion that POTUS (ANY POTUS) is dumb.

You are the legally elected leader of the execute branch of the biggest economic and military power in the world, and your daddy's friends still tell you what to do. If you put that in any other scenario you'd have a cuckold, a patsy, a fall-guy, a bitch, a crony, a chump, a sucker, or a goon, yet when it happens in the highest office of our government, we excuse it?

Thor,


Wesley Clark has his own baggage. How can he talk about the bogged down war in Iraq when he was the Commanding General over in Bosnia. Last I checked, we were still there. So there goes that whole "cannot manage a war" angle.

Lets talk about the other choices.

Gore. Come on... He is going to be emotionally unstable after the UN takes control of his greatest invention "the Internet"

Kerry. Same arguements that lead to his downfall will come back to haunt him. And I am talking about the wife, not the swiftboats.

Obama. Wildcard, with no major baggage that we know of, but is the country ready for a minority President. Hard truth, not a racist statement. (same can be said for Conde Rice)

Bill Richardson. From a state with a obvious illegal alien issue, has baggage from the firing of a asian employee for expected espinoge that was found out to be innocent (until the decided to classify information he was taking home, so they could convict him of something).

Hillary. Nobody trusts her. Nobody wants Bill back in office (even if it is a the first lady... er man.)

regardless, it should be interesting in 08

Wesley Clark has his own baggage. How can he talk about the bogged down war in Iraq when he was the Commanding General over in Bosnia. Last I checked, we were still there. So there goes that whole "cannot manage a war" angle.
What war? That mission, at least, was accomplished. How many soldiers have died from an uncontrollable insurgency in the last 6 years? We're still in Korea and Germany, too.

Your objection to Gore has no substance, I don't want Kerry to run, Obama needs a few more years to percolate, Richardson has no more baggage than most other politicians, and Hillary -- yes -- has issues.

Other Dem possibilities have their issues, too, but so do most politicians. Still, Clark makes for a good candidate at the present time.

Gore doesn't have any "pop" to him; he is a flat and uninteresting person. It shouldn't matter, but it does.

To do well in a national election these days, candidates must have a certain cult of personality, as well as massive funding. Gore's lack of the first will prevent him from getting the second.

The failures in Iraq can be placed square on the shoulders of Rumsfeld. The minimalist approach was an abject disaster. A double headed insurgency was allowed to take hold and establish deep roots. Now, Iraq is a launching pad for attacks on the US (the planning of the discovered Subway bombings was from Iraq)
Had we been able to secure the borders and installed some kind of massive rebuilding project without fear of terrorism... we had a chance. Had we correctly thought that we wouldnt have been treated like conquering heros, but an occupying force until we proved otherwise... we had a chance.
Its gone now.. AT BEST, we can hope to leave some duct taped fragile alliance on verge of civil war.
Iraq has more possibilty of being the nightmare scenario than the dream scenario.
Still up to your old armchair quarterbacking I see.

Report: Iraqi Informant Admits Subway Threat Was Hoax (http://www.nbc11.com/news/5083949/detail.html)

Just like the mass rioting, rapes, and murders reported by our media during hurricane Katrina that never occured, you're no where near the truth on Iraq. That's been proven again and again and again since you first sit down on your ass and pronounced yourself the local copy'n paste guru.

Your "Bush did the right thing, I would have done it better" diatribe has seriously gotten stale. Coming from a high school teacher slash afterschool whuffleball coach who has repeatedly rediculed Bush's intelligence for years now, but now suddenly wants to somehow moderate himself and be the neutral pundit everyone can huggle up to deserves the "bullshit flag".

Now about the Democrats. Want in the Whitehouse? Want back the Senate? Want back the House? Fucking stop being pussies on defense. You'll get it back.

First off,


My comments about Gore was an obvious joke. There are many more things that can be said as to why he will not win. For example I think that Esbat summed it up quite well. He is boring, and he is also connected to an administration that they can point a lot of fingers at.

Also, I found this article quite interesting. Not only does it back up what I have been bitching about for a while. http://www.variety.com/VR1117930736.html I particularly like the comment about 'Commander and Chief". Ya... just a bunch of actors...

And with the ratings success of ABC's frosh skein (http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=slanguage_result&slang=skein&page=Slanguage&display=skein) "Commander in Chief," which stars Geena Davis as the first female president, pundits see the portrayal as warming the country up to the idea of a woman occupying the Oval Office.
So, "warming the country up" to a female President is equivalent to "a bunch of actors calling for Hillary as President?" Grasp at straws much? Which of those actors pen the script and produce the show? What is wrong with the idea of a show about a female President? Where is a quantification of the show's alleged influence upon the electorate? How does that influence compare with every other form of media bombardment out there from all sides of the political spectrum?

Mountains out of molehills.

Mountains out of molehills.


Many have made the mistake of underestimating Social engineering.. For those that do not know what this is : In political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science), social engineering refers to attempts by governments or private groups to change or "engineer" the views and behaviour of citizens, for example, by the use of advertising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising), through active support of culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), or through the legal system

also


A frequent, and obvious, example would be several forms of advertising and their attempts to sell one something which one does not need nor, in reality, truly want.

Consumer Angst (http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/consumerangst.html) (http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/consumerangst.html) - In this story there are no heroes or villains, just people who believe they can buy happiness, and advertisers who support this belief. Consumerism is one of religion's modern replacements, and, like religion, it actively encourages, then exploits, dissatisfaction with everyday reality.
Other examples include:


Unwarranted faith in the opinion of another - perception of position and qualification: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

Faith in media news outlets - These outlets face overt and covert restrictions. They have time and "edutainment" considerations to make.
Faith in documentaries - Even the most hardcore (http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Hardcore) documentary cannot be perfectly accurate, even if it is relaying generally accepted material.


Social engieering is often seen at the root of fashion, music (http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Music) and other fads, economics, festivals and holidays, politics, etc.




They often say that the greatest trick that the devil did was make us believe he does not exist. That is the genus of Social engineering. Instead of coming out and directly saying that you should be a liberal, what they do is provide you with data that lets you make your own decision. If a person makes up thier own mind, then they are more likely not to change it at a later date. But what if all the information you are receiving is slanted so that they know exactly how you will make your own decision? They use pictures, documentaries, TV SHOWS, movies, songs.. the list goes on.
This is definately an attempt at changing the views and behavior of citizens. If you fail to recognize this, then you might want to look at it from a wider view. I am the one being accused of having blinders... but I can see this quite clearly.

In political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science), social engineering refers to attempts by governments or private groups to change or "engineer" the views and behaviour of citizens, for example, by the use of advertising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising), through active support of culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), or through the legal system
In that case, I can think of a far better example: fake news reports created by the government in order to advocate their policies while not revealing the source of those "news reports." Surreptitiously paying for flacks like Armstrong Williams also comes to mind, and no one is more interested in regulating the behavior of citizens than social conservatives. Thanks for clearing that up.

Use whatever examples you want. I never said it was stickly a liberal stategy. I was just proving to you that it exists, and that TV shows and the actors and actresses in them are part of it. You can pull up Armstrong Williams, and I think that is a great example, just like I could pull up the fact that it seems like every TV show out there has either a Gay/Lesbian ,or some other Politically Correct cuture in it.

What you're "proving" is that people want other people to do things. TV show producers want you to watch their show, advertisers of those shows want you to buy their products, politicians want you to vote for them, religious figures want you to follow their religious beliefs, and I want you to send me absurd sums of money. Some of these requests are better presented than others, but this isn't some great revelation.

To refer to an average TV show as "social engineering" renders the term trite. Sure, it might have some kind of unquantifiable impact, but it pales in comparison to the culture of Red Scare 1950s, enormous depictions of communist leaders in Red Square parades, or the various types of fearmongering used in different times and places throughout history.

Since you agree that we could come up with a considerable supply of examples and counter-examples -- some major, some minor -- the point seems to be lost. This is especially true of non-governmental organizations; I'm one of the millions of people who have never watched Commander-in-Chief, but what a President does has direct effect on myself and society as a whole.

There's also the issue of reflection, that a given form of media reflects a new trend. Thus, as gays become more acceptable in mainstream society, we see them on TV as gays, rather than just catching hints about that sort of thing. Kirk and Uhura didn't invent interracial relationships from their ground-breaking kiss, and toilets were found in bathrooms long before Psycho (first studio film to show a toilet in a bathroom). This is how storytelling has worked for centuries; the advent of mass media only enhances this aspect of an ancient practice.

Government, however, shouldn't be about storytelling, which is why I'd shift the focus there in discussing something like social engineering.

Dear Elemak:

Areas above the treeline in latitude, I hate to break it to you, including moss and tundra 'forests', are *still* wilderness, and that particular wilderness provides a primary calving ground for, and supports much of the world's caribou population (which, by the way, eat exclusively moss). Make sure *you* know the definition of 'wilderness' and what's actually up there before you start into your 'explanation' of why ANWR 'isn't' a vital wilderness area or at least an area for which the potential cost/benefit analysis of rooting around up there for oil falls far short... :)

Regards,
Nydia

Energy > Caribou

I really do think there should be an IQ test required for voting eligibility.

Logic=
-Democratic theory/party appeals to the "poor", "less educated", "less able to help themselves" populus
-Those that are "poor", "less educated", "less able to help themselves" tend to "have less education"
-Those that tend to "have less education" are theoretically "less intelligent"
-Those that are "less intelligent" have lower "IQ" scores.

On the surface the IQ idea isn't too hot. It is a great idea though. I'd be interested in seeing the results.

Oh and don't forget, George Bush hates black people! Save the Caribou! And All Republicans are rich!

Nothing upsets me more and dispalys anti patriotism than anyone disparaging any war veteran, especially a decorated one.

Elemak...lol you made my day, my night, and possibly my year with that post.

People of all political stripes are starting to smell that something is rotten in Denmark. *Neither* party is serving the interests of the people in this day and age; they're serving the major corporations and lobbyists who contribute to their re-election coffers. I've always felt that Democrats *should* be better able to raise a stink about this, as more of these are traditionally 'our issues', but, seriously, where has the outrage been at the coopting of our government 'of the people' by the bottomless lobbying coffers of the few? The Republican leadership has been masterful at distracting the public from issues that *actually* affect them by invoking patriotism and/or religious zeal, and the Democrats... haven't been very masterful at anything except a) running around like chickens with their heads cut off and b) doing a poor-mans imitation of the Republicans while suffering under the ludicrous delusion that that will gain them seats.

In regards to the previous election, it's my opinion that the Democratic base *was* energized, and had enormous potential to awaken the electorate in the last election, but Kerry was... about as exciting as watching paint dry. Our *candidate* took much of the wind out of our sails in this past election, which was a real shame, but in the end, I think that Faervas, in our conversation immediately after the election, may have been right: the people *needed* to see the ugly underbelly of this administration fully exposed, Bush *needed* to be re-elected, in order for folks to get a sense of just why this mode of operation is *bad* for democracy, and demand more fundamental change than just whether our next president is Republican or Democratic.

Regards,
Nydia


People never saw the bad in Hitler till it was too late, "distracting the public" is a bad thing. Hope we never, ever have that problem for any length of time. I still talk to people who still think Bush is the "cats meow". Go figure. :eek: