Talk:Fighting Dems, 2006
Bartfart, if you read McNerney's page, you'll see that he is not a graduate of West Point, but some other Military Academy. Also, it is snarky to claim that a candidate lost due to voter apathy. This is a high-traffic page, and it needs to be correct, don't make me block it. --Corncam 15:54, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
Bill lost due to apathy
Yuba county has alot of people from India and the Middle East the family of Doctor AJ S. (who won) hails from that region. I know alot of people who said they were going to vote but didn't and there weren't enough democrats to compete with the doctors backers.
Does that make sense? Bartfart 15:59, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
Our Shift to the Left Bodes Ill for Electoral Victory in 2008
My fondest wish would be for a democratic Congressional victory this fall, and a democratic President in 2008. Having said that let me share my thoughts on how current events are undermining these hoped for events.
Our political situation is polarized to an extent never seen in my lifetime, which began during the early years of Harry Truman’s first term. Sadly, I believe that same Harry Truman, a remarkably successful President who ended The Second World War, integrated the military, reconstructed Western Europe with The Marshall Plan, and began the first initiatives for health insurance for all, could not get the nomination of either political party today. It doesn’t disturb me particularly that he would not get the republican nomination for his liberal views, it troubles me greatly that he could not get the democratic nomination because he is not extreme enough.
Since the Kennedy/Johnson years, we have elected only two democratic Presidents in the intervening four decades. Jimmy Carter, a post-Watergate fluke created in large part by Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. Clinton, a Southern centrist, was the only one returned to office. There is a lot to be learned from this.
During these four decades of wilderness, the democratic party has gained the unfortunate stigma of being weak on national security. That is an unfortunate designation of the party that defeated Hitler, contained communism, and faced down the Soviet nuclear threat in Cuba. It does, however, show that the electorate will respond to worries on national security by rejecting those as deemed weak. Does being strong mean we have to embrace the Iraq War, a poor decision made on bad information and even more ineptly executed, without any question? absolutely not.
It does mean that we have to realize that there indeed is serious threat to American security and democracy posed by Islamic fundamentalists, and especially a nuclear-armed Iran. It means we must be serious about defending the United States by electing strong and competent leaders than can exercise good judgment in using the military power of the United States and also give us a feeling of confidence.
So how do we elect democrats? We do it by calling for competent management of the war in Iraq, and an exit at the earliest point where Iraq can support itself. We doing it by electing candidates who are willing to face up to the Islamic fundamentalist threat.
We don’t do it by having Michael Moore pillory Hillary Clinton. Michael Moore, for all his creative genius, cannot bring another single incremental vote for democrats. He cannot do anymore good, he should go home and hush. For when he speaks we will lose votes. I grew up in Kentucky, on the border of West Virginia, and I am anguished to see those two states significantly in the red for the two last election cycles. They won’t be brought into the democratic column by Michael Moore, or Ned Lamont or any look-alikes. States like Kentucky and West Virginia will be brought there by pragmatic centrists like Harry Truman or Bill Clinton.
This is a simple question of how to win an election, and I want to do that. Let’s stop the slide to the left, I am tired of being theoretically pure and out of power, unable to guide the nation.
Republicans Aren't Dominant Because They Are Ideologically Squishy
Since the end of the Second World War, Democrats have gradually lost their place as the natural party of government to Republicans because they haven't articulated ideological convictions distinct from those of the Republicans. Democrats lose so many elections to Republicans because many of its candidates are ideologically squishy, representatives of a party with a weak message. If Democrats are ever going to take back the reins of government they mujst offer the country more than just a tepid version of the same policies conservative Republicans have pursued vigorously. The Republican message may be wrong but it is effective because it is articulated forcefully. Democrats haven't a prayer if they refuse to serve as the voice of hope for the real America that they Republicans ignore. The election victory of Ned Lamont The Democratic Party is finding its true vocie again and it doesn't need nervous nellies or sell-outs like Lieberman.