Where are the Christian Democrats?

If the Democrats can figure that out, they may have a chance in the next election.

quote:

---

I don?t believe the majority of people were protecting the party. Moral issues were much more important than protecting the party.

---

Do you know that exit polls reported that most people said was their main reason for voting for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole in 1996?"Moral values."

Yeah, I suppose that expecting the electorate to be anything but completely retarded and gullible is too much to ask.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-02-2005 12:22 AM

democracy.at best, it's only as good as the people it represents.

---

אָרַח

I understand this, and actually I think your thread topic is a really interesting one where you have identified a solid mistake Dems are in the process of making.However, the reason I am bringing up last election is because the analysis of why Dems lost is key to figuring out what they should be doing in the future.I do not buy the argument that they lost by failing to appeal to religious people (which they have neglected in order to appear secular) and so must figure out a new strategy at this point which recaptures that block and yet does not go too far.I hope you'll see that that's the position I am coming from and so not simply trying to drag in an unrelated topic. Hahaha... the ouster of Daschle was fine by me. He was a disaster. The other issues are really not that important except in a temporary sense. The houses move back and forth and will continue to do so.Remember it was about ten years ago when a similar thing happened and the Reps went bananas declaring they were proven to be the party of America and going to take it back from the Dems... and then they fell apart. They fought each other until finally they got themselves together enough not to get any legislation going, but to throw mudballs at Clinton. That was it.It remains to be seen if the Reps can hold it together this time, which is the point I am driving at that has implications for Dem strategy. Believe what you will, but the facts say otherwise. In the convention itself there were no unified values on display. They carted out every type of Rep they could to get the PARTY bandwagon rolling, and emphasize the "big tent" notion.I mean there you had the candidate, who was antiabortion antigay antistemcell pronationbuilding progov't growth proenlarged deficit, and they kept carting out OTHER very popular Reps with the exact opposite position (on most or all those issues). You could even hear it in McCain's speeches, and what you are hearing now in his interviews.Despite his major criticisms on principles with the presidential candidate and many of the congressional ones, he moved back in to support his party. He wanted to keep his party alive, and then have the fight for which principles will reign WITHIN the party.Honestly, how can a person who is a Schwarzenneger or McCain Republican (on moral issues) be thought to support at all the Bush moral issues?You would be right to say that it was their big tent allowance for extreme moral differences which helped. They did not alienate completely any of their members because they put all on display hand in hand, despite the battles that would have to come afterward.Dems got a pretty solid figure despite not running a very "big tent" campaign. I think their best bet is to peel off Reps by appealing to their centrist members. They should campaign on the FACT that in most cases they are more supportive of Republican principles than Reps are.Kind of like it is time to put partisan politics aside and vote principles. If the 2004 election had been voted solely on principles, the results would have been very different. I agree which is why that election was important in a temporary way for the Dems. However you have recently been seeing the fight begin within the Rep party, with public statements by prominent Reps that it is going to continue. He has been handed it least one major defeat already by his own party.That is not to mention state level defeats he has already been handed by his own party.Depending on how this all shakes out, I could very well vote Rep in the next election. I find it interesting that you'd think Clinton's assessment was accurate. While he did have some glowing words, did you not get that he was slamming the Reps for using patent religious ignorance and bigotry?In any case, I only agree with his assessment that they ran a great campaign. It was "big tent" at its best, with the short term rewards that always gets. But it has no soul, no moral center, and so the actual moral center of the party will need to get hashed out.I can only hope Dems do not believe Clinton's words mean that they need to start pretending at faith and family by espousing one single vision of it. That's not what led to rep victory. In a diverse nation there are many different faiths and families and the Dems can play on centrist or inclusive interests of those families.You know, like some of the Reps do and I support. This is true. Though I don't care if Dems win or lose, and so if they give up the principles they held in last election they won't get my vote next time around.There is something about staying consistent to values, even if that means short term losses, which can actually aid the party. As the people do not find solutions with the people who are not stable, they may decide to give the stable party a try.I think they can appeal to rural and small town voters by dealing with economic issues, especially reigning in the growth of gov't. Bush is the worst Tax and Spend Democrat the Republicans ever ran as a candidate. He just slips his taxes by, through pushing them off on future voters that can't effect his current job. The Dems should do a better job explaining this to the small town folks.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

democracy.
at best, it's only as good as the people it represents.

---

We're almost straying away from democracy, my global teacher says, we are more of a representative republic, he has a point, the vote that counts goes through the electoral college, but we are more of an Ancient Rome, than an Ancient Greece. We are eggactly like the Roman Empire was, when Rome fell, things like "bread and stadiums" kept the people delightfully uncaring about those that were effected by it's being, As Americans we think nothing of going into wars, overthrowing democratically elected officials in places that to us simply don't exist. The communist stopping America did a lot of damage to those countries that we tried to stop from "turning to the dark side". I think Castro was a hero for stepping up against the machine, and quickly making ties with Russia. And I don't blame Islamists for trying to kill Americans, for we have done much worse over the span of our country's long existence. (I just found out how to post pictures, I think it rocks.)My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

---

porteus@gmail.com

we've been a representative republic for more than 200 years, you know. the founding fathers understood my statement: "democracy. at best, it's only as good as the people it represents." they decided to remove the direct control of the people, instead opting for a variant of the parliamentary system (with a separation of the executive and legislative branch), where people vote for the people who vote for stuff. quite. there's an old saying to the effect of "when the people get bored, they turn to politics." the best way to ensure tyranny is a good media. a good point, we've done some rather nasty things, often in the name of spreading democracy. which is damned ironic if you ask me. however: i do. at least here in the us.

---

אָרַח

You need a history referesher. We are not at all like the Roman empire. The fall of Rome occured gradually and had a complex mix of causes. Castro was no hero. He was and is a self serving communist dictator that ruined a thriving Cuban society. As far as Islamist terrorists, they ARE to blame for their inexcusable acts of barbarism. Whatever the US has or has not done in no way excuses their actions.Finally, I have no idea what the My Lai massacre photo has to do with Christian Democrats. You are way way off topic here.

That's interesting because that's not what we said when they were attacking other nations, most notably Russia. Remember, not 20 years ago these guys were heroic figures to US leaders such as Reagan, Bush, and Rummy (well he liked Saddam, I can't remember his position on the Mujahadin). Russian actions against them excused whatever actions these poor terrorists launched against them.And while not an excuse, but an explanation, we were the ones that trained them to do what they are doing now to us. It is actually the work of US taxpayer dollars, coming home to roost.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

We’ve trained many people in many countries during the course of our history. We’ve also intervened in numerous situations around the world at one time or other but that doesn’t say anything about current relations with those countries.You’ve raised this issue before in other threads and it just doesn’t stand. You’ve posted a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam with the implication that Rumsfeld is a hypocrite. I then asked if Roosevelt was a hypocrite because of the photo with FDR and Stalin at a cordial get together. None of that means anything. We can appear as friends to many countries, then later through the course of world events we become enemies, then friends again and so on.The same is true for other countries. The British were our mortal enemies at one time. We killed them and they killed us. So what. That’s history and is as relevant as your poorly constructed arguments.The other point is that these relations are between nations and leaders of nations. The US leaders you mentioned did not condone the actions of demented terrorist who strap bombs on their backs and who are just as happy to kill their own people as they are to kill westerners whom they view as infidels.These poor terrorist as you call them, were not trained by US taxpayers to blow up schools killing innocent children then scurry away like vermin. They even kill their own people over false rumors about a religious book.Death, mayhem and destruction is their creed. It is their sole purpose for existence and they will not be deterred regardless of how we or anyone else try to reason with them. Your well meaning but naive sympathy for these poor terrorists is ridiculous and insulting.

Are you familar with the history of the "School of the Americas"?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I didn't post it, Schraf did. And it was not simply that Rumsfeld was a hypocrite. Perhaps you didn't understand the full implications of what you were looking at.The atrocities that we are now declaring as reason for why Saddam is such a monster he had to be removed, were taking place WITH OUR KNOWLEDGE at the time of the photo! We HELPED HIM COMMIT THE CRIMES!That is different than you WW2 photo of a tenuous alliance between major players stopping a greater threat than any one of them seated there.What's even better is at the time we were sucking up to Hussein, there were many decrying this partnership and were put down by the Conservatives at the time as being antiAmerican for not wanting to arm Saddam and being crybabies for mentioning the atrocities.Now the conservatives claim the people who were against the Iraq War were FOR Hussein? Give me a break man. Some of those for the war were the ones who put him in place over the opposition of people who knew what the results would be. Ironically the same people who understood what the results of this war would be and were right.So far its .000 batting average for the neocons, with pics to prove it. I'm not talking 200 years Monk, I'm talking 20 with the same players still active. How on earth you think you can compare these things is beyond me.We trained them HOW to organize and take down their enemies, while baiting and empowering their religious zealotry. We wanted the most militant Islamic radicals in power their because it suited our ends, just as in Iraq secularist thugs suited our ends.Once the Soviet menace was gone, the SAME PEOPLE turned on us because we were their enemy just the same and utilized what we taught them. Yes we did. Watch documentaries on the subject with interviews by their trainers and handlers. Heck, watch Zbigniew (sic) egging their religious zealotry on! Its on tape and film.Your ignorance is really trying my patience. They were heros back then and the media tried to spin it as GOOD back then, over the complaints of those that had an idea where that was going to lead. I'm still waiting for any of you touting this one riot in an isolated area to explain how those people who died were killed. We in the western world lose more than that at rock concerts, riots for other rumors, and sports games. We also killed more post 9/11 when assholes ran around shooting people they thought might be responsible.Come out of the monastery Monk and look at the world. There are idiots and idiotic deaths anywhere. When the rumors were released the Islamic community did not raise en masse all over the world to kill people. It was an isolated incident. Sympathy for them? Ohhhh there's a lot I'd like to say at this point. First of all I did not call them "poor terrorists" as if we are supposed to feel sad for them.I really hate AQ and the Taliban and did so not just back when they were Cheney's pals right before 9/11, but back when they were Reagan and Bush Sr's pals. They were the ones claiming these "poor freedom fighters" need help. Those opposed to our nations policies called them what they were... terrorists.Its too late to try and turn the tables and make it look like people such as me were sympathetic. I hated them before, I hated them on 9/11, and I still really hate them. I was for the invasion of Afghanistan and very delighted at the removal of the Taliban.It is YOUR PALS that armed them, that taught them, and that disempowered the moderates in favor of the extermists and then got all surprised when things went bad, and now try to play like they've always known it and everyone else was behind the times.Iraq was the same issue, except that the people who "suddenly realized" Saddam was bad, took their eye off our more important enemy: AQ.What a bunch of flip-floppers you guys are.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

You need a history referesher. We are not at all like the Roman empire. The fall of Rome occured gradually and had a complex mix of causes.

---

How does this go against us being like Rome, and falling like Rome? So far, we have a complex mis of causes, stretching from the mentality of the people, to the deficit spending, to the immediate gratification just as the fall had. This seems like a complex mix of causes , wrong there.Saying that because the fall was gradual is a generalized statement that is almost subjective, this in no way should be used for support for your argument. (In case you forgot, "we are not like Rome")

quote:

---

Castro was no hero. He was and is a self serving communist dictator that ruined a thriving Cuban society.

---

Castro's intentions of saving his beloved country from another country's grasp deems him a hero in my eyes, You unfortunately have probaably been affected by the media's portrayal of the man who quickly saved his homeland.One of the adjectives you used to portray Castro in a negative light sort of angered me, you used the word "communist". Most likely you lived through the cold war and have a little "Red-Hate" in you. But just in case you can look past the glorious competition between two equally inhumane countries in their actions for supremace, the you might be able to see the basics of Marxism, which sparked Communism. A classless society where all are treated fairly. To what it has turned into partly because of human imperfection and greed is in itself not totally appreciated by us, the west. But I see communism as an effort to make people more equal, and destroy the "have" "have-not" basis for which humans are judged. Marx reached for what was Godly, he did a good job.

quote:

---

As far as Islamist terrorists, they ARE to blame for their inexcusable acts of barbarism. Whatever the US has or has not done in no way excuses their actions.

---

This tidbit of a mostly not thought out post disturbs me greatly. You seem to have the impression that you are the only human that matters on the planet, a view like this can be dangerous, and directly relates to feelings of nationalism, ethnocentricism, bigotry, rascism, and idiocy.This message has been edited by prophex, 06-03-2005 03:20 PM

---

porteus@gmail.com

quote:

---

Finally, I have no idea what the My Lai massacre photo has to do with Christian Democrats. You are way way off topic here.

---

These types of atrocities happened frequently when the United States wanted to spread our precious democracy.

---

porteus@gmail.com

quote:

---

i do. at least here in the us.

---

Why?(about blaming islamists for terror)We are as guilty as they are, actually much more if the death tolls were counted and presented without meddling with by the media. I would feel like one of the "terrorists" if say my homeland was taken from me, or maybe my family was destroyed. Can you understand the perceptions of the tortured?edit:Why don't you use capital letters?This message has been edited by prophex, 06-03-2005 03:21 PM

---

porteus@gmail.com