Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I am not a Liberal or Democrat voter, but I see Bayh's point. If the DNC listens the Republicans are in a little trouble.

Bayh starts off on a good note,

Without an agenda that speaks directly to the middle class and all who aspire to it-

then he makes the mistake all the Dems seem to be making,

we will no longer be the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy-

wait, wait, he's still on a tack many are willing to at least listen to, then he goes south,

and Clinton-

Clinton didn't so much stand on the shoulders of Democrat Party giants, they just keep sort of chucking him up there!

Every Democrat, as they grew up, wanted to be FDR, then Give 'em Hell Harry, then JFK. Now they want to be Clinton and their platform is Bush Sucks (Still). Not much to work with. Bayh has the right idea, the Dems definitely need to get back to an appeal level the proverbial Joneses can keep up with and vote for.

Rand hit this one dead on the melon, "But they aren't, so they won't."

Posted by Steve at July 17, 2006 05:53 PM

Here's hoping that the Dems remain clueless.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 17, 2006 06:06 PM

Lately, they have adverse reactions to clues.

Posted by Al at July 17, 2006 06:34 PM

The problem is that if Dems can't get elected at all, the future power hungry nutjobs will simply rise up through the Republican ranks and destroy it as well. It's more about political power than ideology to them.

Posted by BDavis at July 17, 2006 07:00 PM

"we will no longer be the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy..."

You aren't already - and haven't been for a loooong time.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at July 17, 2006 07:37 PM

BDavis, the power-hungry nutjobs have already destroyed the Republican Party. They go by many names, but some choose to call them neo-cons.

Posted by X at July 17, 2006 09:19 PM

Clinton was a master of appealing to the middle class. At least the dystaff side of it. I remember him promising a middle class tax cut, and then not delivering.

I forgave him that, however since he was almost single handedly responsible for smashing gender feminism in the US. Way to go, Bill!

Posted by K at July 18, 2006 12:51 AM

K,
this was his strange hold on the country. He promised a tax cut and never gave it, and got re-elected. The first Mr Bush promised no new taxes, and it buried him! I, to this day, don't get it.

Why the DNC, their party in particular, and a majority of voters back then, bought into Clinton, the second time fails me.

Better the Devil you know?

Posted by Steve at July 18, 2006 05:15 AM

Because Steve the Democratic Party is devoid of ideas (ideas that would appeal to normal, sane, working class America) and devoid of strong leaders on the order of Roosevelt or Truman. Clinton at least had charisma; and for an America that lives by the political sound bite and that is more interested in Hollywood than Tehran charisma will get you elected.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 18, 2006 06:28 AM

Cecil says: Because Steve the Democratic Party is devoid of ideas (ideas that would appeal to normal, sane, working class America)

Okay, 1st off, I am a conservative, not a Republican. That said (written) I disagree. The Democratic party does have ideas. I'm also sure that some of their ideas are good ones. However, their leadership is terrible, not letting those with good ideas get into the debate. The DNC continues to prop up the same old people (and new ones) spouting the same old rhetoric. This country works well when there are issues to debate. However, we seem to be getting a little mired in mudslinging and hatred for the other idea set, forgetting that we need different sides of an issue to debate and decide on the best course.....granted that's the way its supposed to work and its a pipe dream, but still, you get my point.

Posted by Mac at July 18, 2006 07:04 AM

This thread is no more than an OCD group theory session. Obsessive Condemnation of Democrats, that is.

You might start by actually naming a Democrat, and an office that he holds or seeks, and then explain why you hate him.

Posted by Rockwell Simberg III at July 18, 2006 07:51 AM

Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, for their antigun ways.

Altho I wouldn't call it hatred per se.

Posted by Rick C at July 18, 2006 08:36 AM

Mac, yes there are some Dem's have some good ideas. But as you say they have poor leadership, so as a result those few good ideas never get a chance. Thus on a whole as a party they have no ideas, that was my point.

"SimbergIII", you want names? Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, Byrd, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Carter, Clinton....

And if I have to explain why I think all of these people are idiots... well then you wouldn't understand even then.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 18, 2006 08:37 AM

Who said anything about hating Democrats?

What a maroon.

Oh, and I resent the fact that you put up such idiotic posts under my last name. I can understand why you'd be too embarrassed to attach your own name to them, but that's no excuse to slander mine.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 18, 2006 09:23 AM

Who said anything about hating Democrats?

That is just ridiculous sanctimony. The world's most insufferable grudge-bearers habitually condemn their pet enemies, then turn around and insist that they don't hate anybody.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 09:35 AM

The world's most insufferable grudge-bearers habitually condemn their pet enemies, then turn around and insist that they don't hate anybody.

That's pretty funny, coming from an apparent leftist. Apparently you have no sense of irony at all.

Like your ugly habit of calling everyone who you disagrees with "liars" (I see this on Usenet every day), I suspect that this notion that we hate Democrats is just more projection.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 18, 2006 09:40 AM

Like your ugly habit of calling everyone who you disagrees with "liars"

Not so fast. I don't think that you are a liar. I think that you are an extremely forthright person, in a way. I think that you're pretty gullible, in fact I think that you eat out of the palms of a few politicians who really are brazen liars. One way to describe gullibility is to say that it's lying to yourself. But it's not lying on any moral plane. Gullibility is no more than a mental malfunction.

I don't think that anyone here is lying. Everyone here who has supplied reasons that the Democrats are inferior -- either because they are "clueless" or "idiots" or "power-hungry nutjobs" or whatever -- has honestly resolved not to vote for them any time soon. It makes life very simple. Wouldn't it be convenient if you could file by-party absentee ballots 5-10 years in advance?

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 09:59 AM

I think that you're pretty gullible, in fact I think that you eat out of the palms of a few politicians who really are brazen liars.

Ah, yes. Bush lied, people died.

Thanks for making my point.

And the notion that I "eat out of the palms" of any politician is hilarious.

But on a par with the cluelessness and stupidity of the rest of your cowardly anonymous posts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 18, 2006 10:03 AM

Hey troll-bait, I mean Rockwell don't go away mad, just go away. You start off insulting everyone and then offer nothing intelligent. What a wanker.

Posted by Bill Maron at July 18, 2006 10:12 AM

Ah, yes. Bush lied, people died.

That's not my point. That slogan refers to WMD and all that. I think that Bush sincerely believed everything that he said about WMD. There was no lying in it other than (obsessive) gullibility.

No, he's lying right now. He is trying to lie his way out of defeat in Iraq. He has no choice. No president in American history has ever admitted to losing a war.

And the notion that I "eat out of the palms" of any politician is hilarious.

I agree. Hilarious, but true.

Although I will grant that you have made some mental preparation for defeat in Iraq. If Iraq is not really a war, but just one little battle in a much larger war, then defeat there is no longer unthinkable, even if it is unpalatable. America may never lose wars, but it does now and then lose battles.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 10:18 AM

Hilarious, but true.

No, hilarious because it's so stupidly and laughably false.

But, please anonymous cowardly troll, continue to provide us with comedy relief.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 18, 2006 10:26 AM

Troll says:He is trying to lie his way out of defeat in Iraq.

What exactly defines losing? So far, we've done everything we say we would and we are supporting those things as we said we would.

As discussed before, Dems do have good ideas, but their leadership squelches everything that runs perpendicular to their views. Democrats are NOT inferior, their leadership is. You rail against us for hating (which is untrue for me, I won't assume for others) but all I here (read) from you is continual accusations and spitting hatred for those that do not agree with you. Either side of the aisle can be labelled as hating the other, but you are providing proof that you hate and revile, not an opinion.

Posted by Mac at July 18, 2006 10:43 AM

What exactly defines losing?

Losing is when they foster squadrons of Islamic jihadists, when they had some of them the keys to the kingdom, and even insist that some of them are our friends.

For example, in May, President Bush promoted Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, as an "able leader". Not two months later, Mashhadani blamed violence in Iraq on Jews. He said, "Some people say ‘we saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor.’ These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew."

Now, do you honestly think that there is no one to tell Bush what Mashhadani thinks of Jews?

Do you realize, for that matter, that the al-Dawa Party that has twice won the prime minister seat in Iraq, is the same al-Dawa that suicide-bombed the American Embassy in Kuwait in the 1980s? Do you think that no one has told Bush that?

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 11:01 AM

Three years ago, a buddy of mine put together an MS Excel file containing a number of my pontifications and predictions and named it The Hager File.

I'm currently 5 for 5 (see blog link above - on Monday my prediction about Group Manager proved correct). Two predictions I made in July 2004 were that Evan Bayh would be the Democratic nominee and, later, the President in 2008. If only Nixon could go to China, it may well be the case that only a Democrat can reform the entitlement programs. It appears that Bayh is beginning to articulate the moderate themes (notice private accounts) the Dems will need to win - exactly the sort of thing I expected way back when.

Critical to Bayh's (or other moderate Democrat's) success will be Bush "winning" the War on Terror. By "win", I mean denuclearizing Iran and bringing down the Mullahs, containing North Korea, and causing Syria to collapse. If Bush does this, all that will be left of the War on Terror will be mopping up and domestic policy will dominate the 2008 election cycle.

Posted by Paul Hager at July 18, 2006 11:51 AM

He has no chance denuclearizing Iran. It would have been a tall order from the get-go. Making the US an unwilling, dirty-work ally of Iran in Iraq wrecked any last hope of it.

But the juxtaposition of the Democrats with the Middle East does point to another truth. If the next president is a clueless, power-hungry nutjob idiot, which is to say a Democrat, then it will be emotionally more palatable to argue that he (or she) lost the war in Iraq. Everything was going swimmingly while Bush was president, the argument will go; his successor managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It's a lot more persuasive than the fall-back argument that Iraq is just one itty bitty skirmish in a much larger war. Obviously it isn't being fought that way. Compared to the rest of the war on terrorism, Iraq is being fought like it's D-Day and Okinawa combined.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg, III at July 18, 2006 02:02 PM

Rockwell says: Losing is when they foster squadrons of Islamic jihadists, when they had some of them the keys to the kingdom, and even insist that some of them are our friends.

Losing for us is the other side defeating us and taking our freedoms. Since you can still post here, our freedoms are intact. We're not losing. There are many people though who desperately WANT to lose, i.e. you. You seem not to care one way or the other about the war, you just hate Bush and his administration and want them out.

Rockwell says: For example, in May, President Bush promoted Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, as an "able leader". Not two months later, Mashhadani blamed violence in Iraq on Jews.

Gee, Americans elected Clinton and months later he was cheating on his wife in the Oval Office....so what?

Mashhadani has proven he's not a puppet, which should be a good thing for you, but you twist whatever you can into "Bush is a failure and I hate him."

Posted by Mac at July 18, 2006 03:15 PM

Mashhadani has proven he's not a puppet

He's proven that he's on the other side. A puppet might not necessarily be so bad, in my view.

"Bush is a failure and I hate him."

I don't hate him as a human being. He could have done really well as a baseball manager. But it's hard not to hate his war record if you like America. I'm sure that everyone here is going to hate his war record sooner or later, although a lot of people will blame someone else for it.

On the other hand, if you are a jihadist who hates America, Iraq is a field of dreams.

Posted by Rockwell Simborg at July 18, 2006 05:07 PM

Hey Elishitz, we know its you

Go hump a straw sofa.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 18, 2006 07:38 PM

Rockwell says: I don't hate him as a human being.

No, you hate his administration's handling of the war. His administration, whether you like it or not, is the representation of America's interests. You have the right and freedom to disagree. You also have the right to hate the administration's handling. This of course, leads to a hatred of the representation of America's interests.

Rockwell says: On the other hand, if you are a jihadist who hates America, Iraq is a field of dreams.

Uh huh, which is what I thought in the first place. Hating the administration is one thing, but from the tone of your posts, you're a whole lot closer to hating America than I am. America is demeaned by those with a defeatist attitude and those we are fighting are using that against us. We are fighting to give people freedom. Do the Iraqis not deserve to have the freedoms you do? Are the leaders of Iraq not allowed to have the freedom to say what they want to say?

Posted by Mac at July 18, 2006 07:44 PM

Spoofing Rand's last name does irk me as well. Acting this way goes in hand with someone who is sitting back thinking they are extremely cute and intelligent as to come up with this sort of stuff. Like there is a novelty to the way they think that somehow eludes most people. Most people eventually grow up and realize that all these inane concepts are the same sh!t different smell as everyone elses.

Jeez this guy/gal/it talks like he's taken a couple of psychology classes and now he's got everyone figured out. It is not hard to take everyone one of these concepts and labels he attempts to apply to everyone and easily turn them back in on himself. I see someone who is struggling with their own insecurities and fears generated by the looking glass self and projecting this angst onto others. This itself is nothing new either, we all experience this type of trepidation. It is easy to fall into the trap of antagonistic rhetoric in attempts to gain superiority over the imagined shortcomings that one has projected onto others.

You accuse us of eating out of the palm of certain leaders. Only problem is, realistically we all have to eat. We all snatch that kernel of knowledge that gets handed down to us by someone. I'll let you in on a secret, we all have already thought of your point of view, its not that unique, its not that novel, and simply through looking at facts versus emotions have decided that it is not a viable position to maintain. We analyzed, we pondered, and delegated a priority of ideas just like you did but came to different conclusions. I hate to tell you but your more duped with this unnecessary superiority complex then anyone else on this board. In this case it is all the more sad because you've duped yourself.

Posted by Josh Reiter at July 18, 2006 08:31 PM

Post a comment