Mein Fuhrer on Larry King

[JohnnyFlame]

[quote=RougeUnderoos;606548]You started this thread with a clearly false statement and you got called on it. Deal with it.

In my first post I mentioned that it was a fair point for the right-wing guy to say "there they go again bringing up Hitler". That being said, it's pretty obvious that the woman didn't say "Bush was like Hitler" which you insist was the message.

Anyhow, I don't think the Democrats have a monopoly on mudslinging or painting the other side as something they are not. I notice a few people around here have been convinced that Kerry (the guy who actually, you know, served his country and fired a weapon) is a "wussie" and that George is some sort of soldier.[/qu

Aleady conceded she didn't say it directly and it's only a inference to a continuing effort to paint Bush as Hitler which is just stupid. Plus already conceded it's not the best example but it still dosen't mean the inference is anything but dumb.

As for the Kerry thing that he is perceived as a WUSS is the whole point. Whether he is a wuss or not depends on what you think of his actions post war. Even skipping that debate which is pointless as it's just more of the same Hitler type smear BS.

And it started long before Kerry. Heck back to at least McGovern(sp).

All a matter of spin -- Which is really my point above all others -- the harping on this board reflects what politics is all about these days. Nothing!!! --- Anti what ever the other guy says and quite willing to change to exactly what he said if it suits them later.

There are no leaders --- just rich guys who want to play politics and news agencies that need stories to make money.

If a guy with some actual political convictions ever ran no doubt he would be unable to steer the high road and keep talking policy over BS. He would be overwhelmed by the SMEAR campaigners as radical. I can see it now -- this guy has actual thoughts of his own and he sticks to them -- we can't have this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Iowa, since you are more in the know down there, who does it look like will run for the Dems/Reps down there for president.

Reps names thrown around are McCain/Juiliani/Rice(If Hillary runs)
Dems names thrown around are, I assume Hillary/Baraq(sp?)(likely not experienced enough but would add an interesting Dynamic)

Are there any other names thrown out there? Goveners etc?

Thanks

MYK

Well, Gov. Vilsack of Iowa was talked about a few years ago, but that talk has pretty much stopped. If you want my opinion, he'd be hard pressed to find any traction outside the Midwest. Joe Biden is exploring a bid, Evan Bayh of Indiana, a centrist/conservative is considering one too. Barack Obama will probably run, but I think he's still too young. He is the Dems' rising star though--lots of charisma, great fundraiser, all the ingredients are there. Hillary and Kerry will both run, though a lot of people wish they wouldn't. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is another name, and Edwards will probably run again.

A lot of names--it's basically an open question. I don't know if any of the names excite me too much, though.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Ahh the lost art of reading comprehension. Throwing in the towell was in reference to the inability of the Democrats to be able to paint themselves as tough leaders. Of course there are different types all over the place but the overall national outlook on the Dem's as Wussies is one they have been trying to get out from under for years.

Uh, if you say so. I'm curious: do you even live in the U.S.? It sounds like your understanding of American politics is based on a movie you once saw. I also like your shot at my "reading comprehension"--after lambasting Lanny for his ad hominem attacks. Nice.

As for why the Democrats would be leading geez give your head a shake. What a stupid answer to a known deficit of the Democratic Party. Ahh we are leading so whatever they say we are weak in isn't true --- LOL nice logic bud.

Right. Because that's what I said. Actually, what I did was tell you that your inference, that "most Americans think Dems are wussies" is just flat wrong. I'll wait patiently for you to provide evidence to the contrary. Your earlier comment about "reading comprehension" is suddenly shockingly relevant.

I haven't heard a single thing from Democrats that I could see convincing somebody to change their vote other than the other guys are freakin brown shirts jackbooting through the streets -- Put us in -- we are crooks but at least we ain't facists!!

If your overall point is that the Democrats are benefiting from the cluster-you-know-what that is the Bush administration, then yes, you're right. The Dems are notoriously bad at politics, and this year is no exception. This victory will be handed to them in spite of themselves. On the other hand, I'm curious as to who these democrats are who are claiming Bush is a fascist. I sure haven't heard of any of them. Are you sure they weren't referring to some other Broadway musical you've never heard of?

So very, very typical of politics in general these days which is so entirely bankrupt. The party that is out has nothing to offer -- ZIP. Their platform amounts to little else than "Put us in -- those guys SUCK!!!

Hey, no argument here. The fact is, there are no good options in Iraq for whoever's in power. But if you were paying attention, you'd know that these elections are about a much broader range of issues than just the ones that cause large swings in public opinion. You know, the little things: abortion rights, civil rights, taxation, health care, etc. The Dems and the GOP have very different agendas on those issues--the fact that neither party runs on those issues has nothing to do with their ideologies, and everything to do with the public's attention span. It's a fact of life down here, and the parties are just figuring out ways of dealing with it.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that the Democrats are very much suffering from the same problem as the federal Liberals. They jump all over the place on issues and don't have a defined definate platform, as a party they come across as, well to me anyways really disjointed, they're trying to please everyone no matter what the issues and they come across as inconsistant.

The Liberals up here tossed the election away because they couldn't settle on any issue except to attack the conservative platform, the Dems in the states are very much the same.

Its great to say for example that your going to pull the troops out of Iraq, but at least define what you mean and stick to it, and make sure that you can explain the consequences of the action. Its great to say that the president is attacking the constitution, but instead of railing at it, look like you actually know what your talking about.

The American people don't want or need emotional talking heads in government, they want someone that sounds like they have a specific viewpoint or platform and is willing to stick to it. Its the oldest trait of good leadership.

I respect some of the Democrats when they say something, but to me they're the minority.

I respect some of what the Liberals want, but its the issue jumping and wishy washyness that drives me away.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

CC: I agree to a certain extent--"the vision thing" has been a problem for the Democrats for a while. I do think there's a danger in over-generalizing though. The Democrats have been working hard to gain traction on some of these issues, and the complete lack of a charismatic person to synthesize their message from the top down has been their Achilles heel. Not to mention that it's taken a while for them to even agree that the country's current direction isn't very good. But to say that they're wishy washy on all the issues isn't quite accurate. Iraq is a difficult issue because typically the democratic position is something like "we wouldn't have gone in; now we need benchmarks for success and a scaled withdrawal"--which is far too complicated for the American public, who see this issue in terms of "stay the course" or "cut and run." As usual, it's not that simple.

The way that politics works down here is generally that Democrats try to be too detailed in their policy proposals, while Republicans work to simplify issues down to digestible soundbites. The first might make for better policy (at least I suspect it does) but the latter definitely makes for better politics. The proof of that is in the pudding, so to speak.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

CC: I agree to a certain extent--"the vision thing" has been a problem for the Democrats for a while. I do think there's a danger in over-generalizing though. The Democrats have been working hard to gain traction on some of these issues, and the complete lack of a charismatic person to synthesize their message from the top down has been their Achilles heel. Not to mention that it's taken a while for them to even agree that the country's current direction isn't very good. But to say that they're wishy washy on all the issues isn't quite accurate. Iraq is a difficult issue because typically the democratic position is something like "we wouldn't have gone in; now we need benchmarks for success and a scaled withdrawal"--which is far too complicated for the American public, who see this issue in terms of "stay the course" or "cut and run." As usual, it's not that simple.

The way that politics works down here is generally that Democrats try to be too detailed in their policy proposals, while Republicans work to simplify issues down to digestible soundbites. The first might make for better policy (at least I suspect it does) but the latter definitely makes for better politics. The proof of that is in the pudding, so to speak.

Oh so the Dem's appeal to smart votes and the Republicans work to their dumber base. Is that about it? Funny but from afar although yes I have lived in the States and in one of the funniest political states of them all(Louisiana) it looks like the Dem's position on the IRAQ war was hell yeah I vote go get them. Yes I vote give the boys more money to conduct the war. Whoops too many body bags and we can use the no WMD thing against the Rep's. OK we are out of here and we would have never gone in in the first place if we had been given proper intelligence. Now we would love to cut and run but that would get a whole lot of people killed(as Bush and the boys point out). So let's go with we'll run the war better and get the boys home quicker.

So basically a complete turn around on the main issue as they can't argue the economy which is always what many people base their vote on.

Now if Bush and the boys aren't looking for a way out of the war and a scaled withdraw then the they are being controlled by the oil company and defense contractor conspiracy boys have got it right.

I would think if anything that from afar the Reps look like they actually believe something whether they actually do or not and state it in plain terms where it's kinda hard to tell what the Dem's believe and not because it's hard to understand but because it seems fabricated during the time leading up to an election.

[Lurch]

Oh so the Dem's appeal to smart votes and the Republicans work to their dumber base. Is that about it? Funny but from afar although yes I have lived in the States and in one of the funniest political states of them all(Louisiana) it looks like the Dem's position on the IRAQ war was hell yeah I vote go get them. Yes I vote give the boys more money to conduct the war. Whoops too many body bags and we can use the no WMD thing against the Rep's. OK we are out of here and we would have never gone in in the first place if we had been given proper intelligence. Now we would love to cut and run but that would get a whole lot of people killed(as Bush and the boys point out). So let's go with we'll run the war better and get the boys home quicker.

So basically a complete turn around on the main issue as they can't argue the economy which is always what many people base their vote on.

Now if Bush and the boys aren't looking for a way out of the war and a scaled withdraw then the they are being controlled by the oil company and defense contractor conspiracy boys have got it right.

I would think if anything that from afar the Reps look like they actually believe something whether they actually do or not and state it in plain terms where it's kinda hard to tell what the Dem's believe and not because it's hard to understand but because it seems fabricated during the time leading up to an election.

I think you are dramatically missing the boat with what is going on with this election. IMO, the Democrats are handily ahead on pretty much every front other than terrorism/war. Republicans are embroiled in several criminal scandals (kind of kills the whole moral high ground they like to hang out on), economy is NOT doing well, despite what you seem to think, sex scandal is Republican this time, etc, etc. The KEY platform for the Republicans is "only we can prosecute this war and stop terrorism", which is getting to be a tougher and tougher sell given their 4 years of demonstrated failure. Really, the Democrats only have to ask the question "Given the last 6 years of total control by Republicans (President, House and Senate), do you like the country more or less than you did in 2000?" I know where I stand on this question, and I think you'll see the vote go accordingly.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Oh so the Dem's appeal to smart votes and the Republicans work to their dumber base. Is that about it?

If we're going to have a conversation about this, you have to stop putting words in my mouth. That isn't what I said and you know it. "Simplifying" an issue is merely making it more marketable to a public that is distracted by its own concerns. Making complex policy proposals in an election (like the Dems often do) just shows that they don't understand politics.

I have a feeling that you knew all along what I was actually saying, but wanted to play "gotcha" instead of having a debate. If so--fine. But you'll be doing it without me in the future. Remember--you're the one who criticized MY reading comprehension. Common courtesy dictates that you make an effort to comprehend my arguments.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Oh so the Dem's appeal to smart votes and the Republicans work to their dumber base. Is that about it?

Wow Johnny, you got some major league balls. You call people out on their posting habits and then come up with the beauties in this thread? You call out the Democrats for making a claim they did not, and then go on to lambaste the Democrats as "wussies". Fart! You like to claim that you are an original thinker, and say that others are not, yet you repeat nothing but talking points and show zero comprehension of the issue. Great work!

Funny but from afar although yes I have lived in the States and in one of the funniest political states of them all(Louisiana) it looks like the Dem's position on the IRAQ war was hell yeah I vote go get them.

The truth of the matter is quite different from the way you put it. The President was give the authority to go to war IF diplomacy was exhausted. The house voted on giving the President the ability to use this as an option, not an immediate step. In fact, many on both sides of the aisle have said they did not vote for war as the declaration was not tabled and has yet to be tabled. There is a very big difference between what was voted on and what happened after the fact. Both sides agree on that to varying degrees.

Yes I vote give the boys more money to conduct the war. Whoops too many body bags and we can use the no WMD thing against the Rep's.

So you're saying the false pretenses were okay. It was okay for the Bush administration to pull a fast one and submit erroneous intelligence to the house that allowed for a positive vote? Sounds more like what went on in the Politbureau.

OK we are out of here and we would have never gone in in the first place if we had been given proper intelligence.

Nawww, its much better to stay in the middle of a civil war where the people do not want us there. Much better solution. We must "stay the course", even if it kills and bankrupts us.

Now we would love to cut and run but that would get a whole lot of people killed(as Bush and the boys point out).

Nice talking point. Not at all what has been said, but good soundbite.

So let's go with we'll run the war better and get the boys home quicker.

Run the war better? And how is that going to happen? Bush and his cronies have not listened to the experts (the generals) yet, so why would they start now? It is well past the point of control. The only thing to do is to pull back to a safe distance and maintain a perimeter. The people of Iraq now have to find their own way, and the only way they will do that is by fighting it out. We started this mess, and the best thing we can do is get out of the way and let the regional powers come in and find the solution. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey all have a stake in this and they are the ones that should be looked to clean up this mess. The United States can no longer do anything other than continue to bleed the taxpayers in this country dry.

So basically a complete turn around on the main issue as they can't argue the economy which is always what many people base their vote on.

The economy is very much a topic the Democrats, and anyone else, should be arguing on. The only indicators that are looking good are the stock market and the banks. Yup, BIG business is doing great and it is showing in stock performance, but the reality of the matter is that the average American is getting murdered in this economy. Housing prices are out of control. Wages are down. Fuel costs are a killer. Medical costs are through the roof. Food prices continue to climb. These are the staples of the average American's existence, and they are all going beyond the reach of most. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting screwed hard. The corporations are doing wonderful things, as they continue to ship jobs and the tax base to other countries. All that does is fatten their bottom line and raise their stock price (both false indicators of a healthy economy). This is a huge problem and one that needs to be addressed. It certainly isn't going to happen under the pro-big business Republicans.

Now if Bush and the boys aren't looking for a way out of the war and a scaled withdraw then the they are being controlled by the oil company and defense contractor conspiracy boys have got it right.

I don't think it is that simple. Oil is but one aspect of the desire to be in the region. Power and control are the primary incentives. Protecting the viability of the American dollar is another that is too often over-looked. The issue is very complex and cannot be put into black and white terms that most voters can easily grasp.

I would think if anything that from afar the Reps look like they actually believe something whether they actually do or not and state it in plain terms where it's kinda hard to tell what the Dem's believe and not because it's hard to understand but because it seems fabricated during the time leading up to an election.

That is the strength of the Republicans. For the most part, they appeal to a simple crowd. They play well in the states and districts where the "folks are hard working people" and have foundation in "American values". That's Republican-ese for "not so well educated". That's not saying the people are dumb, just that they don't know any better. They were raised in rural areas where religion, mom and apple pie was the foundation of their upbringing. Good people, just not really in touch with the issues and the big picture. That is why the Republicans simplify issues and run on issues that appeal to these people and their values. These aren't Republican values in any way, just the ones the party will appeal to win an election. This is why black and white and fear issues are so important to the Republicans and why they stay away from the complex issues that require some actual thinking and understanding. It is much easier to sway a voter when you appeal to his gut than when you appeal to his brain. Rovian politics at its finest.

I think the Democrats are miscast. They are not wussies. Hell, there are many decorated war heros in congress that are Democrats. I think what is wrong with the Democrats is that they are so disorganized. They have no cohesive approach to issues, which is the liberal mentality. You get 100 Democrats in a room and you'll get 100 different views on matters. They may all reach the same conclusion, but the way they get their message across is different and diverse. Democrats view their politics as a collective party IMO. They view the diversity as something you want in your "party" and that's what makes it great. Everyone can have a voice. The Republicans OTOH are all on very organized, on message and have the same vision. They are a political organization. Politics is their business. Everyone is on message or they shut up. If they don't want to shut up, they will be ousted in favor of someone who will play ball. That's why the Republicans are so much more efficient at the political game in America. They are not all that good for the country IMO, but they are the best at the game of political hackery that passes off as democracy in action.