Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Democrats are out of touch?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Democrats are out of touch?
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 04, 2004 10:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So say some prominent Democrats. I guess that means Democrats will now attempt to fool everyone by seeming to adopt a more family friendly agenda and seemingly move into positions more in tune with the rest of America to win some elections.

I don't think America cares what Democrats appear to be but are tuned in to what their positions really are.

Others, even less in touch with reality say, No Way.

Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004 9:09 a.m. EST
Sen. Dodd: We Democrats Are out of Touch

Thoughtful Democrats are realizing they should view Tuesday's elections as a wake-up call and start considering why they're so out of touch with the American people.

"We Democrats better think long and hard about what happened ... and how our party is going to connect with the hopes and aspirations of the people," liberal Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said Wednesday after managing to win re-election, unlike Minority Leader Tom Daschle.

"We have lost the ability to connect with people's value systems, and we're going to have to work to get that back."

Retiring Democrat Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia wrote for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.

"The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle."

Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., noted: "I think that the Democratic Party nationally is perceived as being out of step with mainstream values. I want our party to do a better job of speaking to matters of faith and family."

The more clueless among them, however, are merely wailing.

"We have lost just about everything that we can lose," moaned San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader.

Even though the Democrats chose the Senate's No. 1 leftist for their presidential nominee, Green Party leader Jo Chamberlain told the San Francisco Chronicle that leftists should now abandon the Democrat party.

"We stepped aside and told the Democrats, 'Go get the White House,' and they failed," she grumbled. "So now, the progressive left is suffering because of their poor planning and leadership."

Now that's what you call progress.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/4/92813.shtml

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted November 04, 2004 11:40 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey JW,

I was wondering.... what do you think of the fact that Clinton just "happened" to have major heart surgery scheduled during the home strech of the race?

Possibly the most important time Kerry would have needed a "Southern Democrat" to stump for him...

I'm kinda thinking that Hillary wanted Kerry to lose so she can run in 2008... have any input?

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted November 04, 2004 11:47 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've heard theories about the same thing, LL. It's really not all that far fetched.

IP: Logged

miss_apples
unregistered
posted November 04, 2004 11:56 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I dont know, having heart surgery just so you dont have to help out with a campaign seems like going a bit far. Im sure there were other ways to get out of it then that.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 04, 2004 12:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, first the Clintons backed Wesley Clark, a candidate they knew couldn't win the election.

Then, they sent their sycophant administration members over to the Kerry Campaign and into the 527 groups to attack Bush on phony issues...which most people saw right through.

It's been the kiss of death whenever Bill Clinton endorsed a candidate, so when Clinton grabbed Kerry and kissed him, I knew for sure the Clintons wanted Kerry to lose. Clinton didn't give Kerry much help but I'm not sure he arranged to have bypass surgery just to get out of campaigning for Kerry.

Lastly, the Clinton's kept their disastrous man, Terry McAuliffe at the head of the DNC and got away with it because the Clintons control the flow of money in the Democrat party. Terry McAuliffe looks and talks like a madman whenever he appears on a talking heads show.

So yeah, I think the Clintons did everything in their power to help Kerry lose because it would have been hard for Hillary to run against Kerry in 2008...frowned on too. Not to mention that Kerry would have been in charge of the Democrat party. Now, the door is open for her.

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted November 04, 2004 12:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's right, I totally forgot that they didn't even send James Carville over to help out until after the conventions...

If they really wanted him to win they would have put their advisors out with him way earleir...

Not to mention they let Al Gore run around like a madman too stumping for Kerry... That only hurt him...LOL

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a