From a former (R), who is now also an (I), I agree completely.

Well said.

A few principles that I hold, as a Democrat:

1.) Hatred of Bush does not mean hatred of a man; it means opposition to a carefully orchestrated series of domestic and foreign policies by persons whom he represents

2.) Ends do not justify means. Democracy could have been achieved at a lower cost than what has been paid, in $ and lives and limbs.

3.) Democrats stand for human rights, universal health care, reproductive freedom, separation of church and state, the rights of all citizens to be treated equally under the law regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, Social Security, and a living wage

4.) Democrats have been losing because they aren't listening to advice from their base but rather from outsiders who do not share our interests. Did the Republicans ask the Democrats what they needed to do in 1965?

JT sez: "Find something to stand FOR,..."

But they already do.

Abortion, ever higher taxation, Hollywood elites, porn, stupid art, pedophilia (via ACLU), surrender monkeys, communists (see: Castro), teachers' unions, anti-religionists, and government control of everything else not listed above.

You see, it's not simply finding something - Anything! Anywhere! Look under the sink! - to stand for. The important part is what that something is.

Social Security? So you mean you stand for the one that is going broke? When the money is gone, what will you stand on then?

> 1.) Hatred of Bush does not mean hatred of a man;
> it means opposition to a carefully orchestrated
> series of domestic and foreign policies by persons
> whom he represents

By "persons whom he represents" I'm guessing that you're not talking about the majority of voters who voted for him, right?

Because chances are, the 52% of the voting public who did vote for W opposes your "opposition to a carefully orchestrated series of domestic and foreign policies."

"Orchestrate away!" said the majority, with pockets of them saying, "Orchestration aside, John Kerry? F that noise!"

And hatred of Bush? Yes, most definitely means hatred of the man. Have you been hiding in afghani caves for the past few years? Have you not seen the foaming at the mouth coming from liberals across these our United States?

When i was a fledgling republican back in the days of whitewatergate and bimbogate and perjurygate and getting-your-dumb-ass-impeachedgate and cattle-futures gate, the hatred of Clinton wasn't so much that we wanted to see him dead, but just that he defiled the office of the POTUS and got in bed w/our enemies and didn't have the interests of the US in mind when it came to foreign policy.

I don't recall ever calling him Evil. Conniving? Oh yeah, NP. Treacherous? Sure. But not evil.

Jihad Jimmy

Some say it's hatred of the man

Others say it's the thousands of dead people in Iraq that they hate.

Jay Tea writes: ...the rest of us don't deserve the consequences.

Yes, we do. We so fscking deserve the consequences. "Democracy: a form of government in which everybody gets the government the majority deserve."

Why do you hate democracy so much, Jay?

They stand to the left of whatever we have at the present and always will until there's no room left. Everything they ever claimed they stood for wasn't enough after they got it.

I would be careful when you accuse the Democrats of hating a man. Since George W. Bush has lead the Republican Party and the country there are very few thing that he has done that I could applaud. In fact, the few things that he has done right he was either forced into doing or they were accidents of his original mistakes.

I would describe myself as a Libertarian, not a Democrat. As a Libertarian I believe that the government should stay out of our homes and only spend the money that we truly need for infrastructure to enable private enterprise to do the rest of the work. George W. Bush fails on both of these issues. He is being coerced by the Religious right on issues that the government shouldn't be involved in such as Gay Marriage, abortion etc... On the fiscal side he is spending like there is no tomorrow. However, instead of raising taxes to pay for his spending he is borrowing money so that we will end up paying twice the price in the long run for the Iraq war and homeland security.

This is not “hating the man,” it is “hating his policy.”

Pay attention! Democrats don't need your fucking advice. All of these things have been addressed, but who the hell are you to set policy for Democrats? Do you want us to win or something?

You should live here. My local pub won't serve me because I walked in 6 MONTHS ago with a Bush/Cheney button.

My entire family have always been Democrats. In the last two years, we have all become Republicans. The County I live in has more Republicans than Democrats these days for the first time ever. We didn't leave the party; it left us.

And Brad, if you stood for something and had a plan, you wouldn't have time for hate. Think about that.

I can't believe anyone who has even marginally payed attention the last year would even try to argue that it isn't hatred of the man.

I have never seen so much vitriole and hatred poured out at one man in my life.

That hatred also gives them tunnel vision, I think they are convinced that the rest of the world hates Bush too, to the point that they think all they need to win an election is to hate even more.

Insta, don't bitch at me. Take up your complaints with President Kerry. Or President Gore. Or President Dukakis. Or President Mondale. Or... well, you get the idea. Or, you ought to if your parents are getting any value out of the money they're spending sending you to University of Minnesota.

Go study, child. You desperately need it.

J.

Yep, referring to someone as a chimp, moron, idiot, Hitler, etc., is hating the policy and not the person.

Riiiiiiight.

Ok, Democrat guys, keep in mind this isn't a jab at those of you who have posted here -- obviously, you're all the sane, normal kind of Democrat we'd like to see more of (no, really, I'm serious) -- but....

First things first, I can't really think of anything that Bush has done domestically that I like aside from tax stuff, and even that I can find a lot of fault with. I also think he really fumbled in making his case for war. I like some of the proposed tax reforms. That aside, I am in no way a Bush cheerleader.

There really is a *lot* of "Bush hatred" out there. It's pretty obvious that most of my peers hate the man and not his policies when they cannot actually name any of his policies, let alone comment intelligently on them, other than, "um, like, dude... he lied, and, um, yeah, war is bad..." This is not hyperbole -- of course, some of the same people said such profound things as "Clinton was a great president because he passed national health care!" (oh really? I didn't seem to notice last time I paid for dental work in cash.... rofl)

Of course, there are obnoxious fringe 'conservatives' who spout all sorts of "God hates fags!" BS. But they don't get seats of honor at GOP events, they don't win film making awards, and they don't have legions of adoring fans.

Now, I really disliked Clinton back in the day, for a number of reasons. But I still had to admit he was a charismatic guy and a good politician. I wasn't carrying on and accusing him of having some evil plan to destroy the world, like so many of the moonbats (both student and faculty) I hear every day. Mother of all ironies, now I'd rather have Clinton back than deal with some of the Dems around today.

Insta, perhaps we DO want you to win; deal with it. I don't think most of us want the GOP to have a solid grip on the government any more than you do. Democrats.... please... get your act together.

Brad - sounds like you are pretty much a classical liberal, FDRish economic parts aside. It's too bad many in your party aren't; Dem support for affirmative action doesn't quite strike me as falling under "treating everyone alike under the law" (the old opportunity vs result argument) And for the vocal moonbat segment, "support for human rights" means "screaming loudly that the US is always the bad guy".

I think Democrats should continue to guzzle their Kool-Aid with gusto.

FDR's original vision of social security included private accounts to social security anyway.

" Democracy could have been achieved at a lower cost than what has been paid, in $ and lives and limbs."
Yup. Whenever you are talking about something that someone else has already done, it's always possible to find areas that could have been done better. Hindsight is 20/20 after all.

But that's not my main objection to that statement. Sure, Democracy COULD have been achieved by other means; anything COULD happen. The question is: WOULD it have happened differently? If the Dems were in the White House the U.N. resolutions would never have been enforced and Saddam would still be in power.

Patrick Chester writes: Yep, referring to someone as a chimp, moron, idiot, Hitler, etc., is hating the policy and not the person. Riiiiiiight.

Oh please. Like we're supposed to believe that all you conservatarians are really prone to collapsing with the vapors every time somebody on the other side of the political fence resorts to the same cheap rhetorical tactics that your side uses all the damned time.

Somebody fetch the smelling salts. A dirty, hairy hippy called the President a moron. The parishoners are fainting left and right. They're all dropping into fetal positions and clawing at their ears. I fear the whole conventicle may be driven into shrill, unholy madness by the very idea.

Okay, Mr. and Mrs. Etiquette, here's an idea: if you don't like the level of discourse, then stay out of the argument. American politics has long been a name-calling contest, and it isn't going to get better anytime soon.

I'm ever so sorry to see your delicate flower-like sensibilities shrivel up and wilt on account of the nasty things those Democrats keep saying about Our Dear Fatherly Leader— but, maybe if you stopped calling them treasonous enemies of freedom who want to enslave everyone, your concerns might get a more friendly reception.

Or maybe not. It might just be that you have to choose between 1) finding a way to meet on common ground with us despite our dirty, hairy hippy ways, and 2) rounding us all up and turning us into organic landfill.

I must be missing something here...........

WHAT CONSEQUENCES????

Cindy

RE: Dr. Forbush's post (February 22, 2005 07:24 PM)
...Since George W. Bush has lead the Republican Party and the country there are very few thing that he has done that I could applaud. In fact, the few things that he has done right he was either forced into doing or they were accidents of his original mistakes.

OK, so you've conceded that he has accomplished some things positive in spite of himself. Could you expound on a few of those? What would you attribute to Bush as a success in which he was the proponent? Oops, nevermind. According to you, none exist. Let's try a different tack. What successes were forced past him? And which resulted from an "original mistake"?

Very well said.

I'm an Indep. who believes our country needs two strong parties. I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and others. I don't have a loyalty to any one party.

It disturbs me to see the Democrats being taken over by the Left. What I see, so far, does not appeal to me. I see anger and conspiracy theories being the no. 1 topic for most Democrats.

Get rid of the anger. Stop chasing conspiracy theories. Stop trashing the US.

Tell me what plans you have for our country. Take a few months' vacation from the Bush bashing and tell me what your plans are.

Republicans should also realize that you could lose the support you have if you veer too far to the right. Don't take the support you have from Indeps., and others, for granted.

s9: What did that strawman do to warrant such a beating from you? Nice way to dodge the issue--no wait, it's a hopelessly clumsy way. The overwrought melodrama kind of detracts from it.

Should I point out your policy of putting words in my mouth and attributing beliefs I don't hold is bad? Little things like:

but, maybe if you stopped calling them treasonous enemies of freedom who want to enslave everyone, your concerns might get a more friendly reception.

Odd, I don't recall doing the above. Nor have I used the word "hippy" to describe my opponents. I would use the term "boorish ass" to describe you specifically, though that's because you pretty much earned it with your whole diatribe. Congratulations!

Jay,

I cannot emphasize enough, how your admonition of my party is utterly worthless in it's disingenuous 'candor', and how your lack of credible evidence only exposes a post rife with ad hominem 'advice'.

Long ago, when someone from the Right accused me of being a 'Bush hater' or of 'loathing' him, I figured out it was an attempt to avoid debating credible criticism of his policies and incompetence. By labeling my argument as being purely personal, you don't have to try to defend him.

What else makes such advice an utter joke, is that it clearly comes from someone who has not effectively had his views challenged - probably ever. And, do not mistake when 1 or 2 lefties like me wander into Wizbang's comments thread as challenge enough, until you try holding your own in a Daily Kos thread, and earn some respect for your opinion.

What is so conspicuous about your post, is the lack of a single live link. If you're gonna preach how we don't stand FOR anything, and only AGAINST everything - an example would be nice.

Truth is a powerful force, and we have it in an abundance. It's what drives me to come here and debate, and what keeps you here, determined to avoid it. We're at a big disadvantage, fighting your control over the media. But, the Social Security debate proved some of that truth is getting through.

Paul Chester writes: Should I point out your policy of putting words in my mouth and attributing beliefs I don't hold is bad?

Nice. I suppose it never crossed your mind to read the word "you" in my post above as a usage of the second-person plural, as opposed to the singular.

If you've been paying attention, you noticed that I haven't called the President a moron or a chimp either. Did I get all huffy about you "putting words in my mouth" or anybody else's mouth? No. I'm fully aware that a lot of folks on my side of the fence are very quick to call the President such names, and I see no reason to join the wingnuts in rebuking them for it. Are you willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the equivalents on your side? Doesn't seem so...

It's interesting, as soon as you encounter a political adversary who won't start bawling like an injured toddler at the first accusation of their engaging in rude and low discourse, that is when your type suddenly discovers your sensitive and caring side and the deep and heartfelt need to keep the discourse civil and free of low-minded insults. Where is that concern all the rest of the time, when folks like Paul come out and openly use eliminationist rhetoric to describe liberals as traitors?

It's quite apparent. If you're a conservatarian, you are never responsible for the statements and views of your more extremist fellows. If you're not a conservatarian, though, then you and Ward Churchill might as well be sharing the same brain. Isn't that how it works around here?

fgirstbrokenangel writes: WHAT CONSEQUENCES????

If you have to ask, then you don't need to know— the answers will be provided to you on an as-needed, just-in-time basis.

Fine, Clive. You say I didn't provide a single "live link" to support my letter. I wasn't trying to "prove" anything, simply spell out my perceptions of matters as a more-than-interested observer. If you'd care to show me a few positive initiatives by Democrats today, be my guest.

For example, you stated that "the Social Security debate proved" a few things. As far as I can tell, that debate is still going on, and all the "truth" I've heard from Democrats is that "there's no crisis, so we better not do anything!" That sentiment runs contrary to years of statements from both sides (most notably, Clinton in '98) and common sense.

And while I haven't actually gone into Kos threads before, I have gotten into a few fights over at oliverwillis.com, and more than held my own. (See here, here, and here). Kos lost all respect from me with his "screw them" reaction to the U.S. contractors butchered in Fallujah, and made that permanent when he allowed his flunkies to attempt to screw Kevin's polls last fall.

But fine, Clive. Ignore my advice. Just be prepared if, within 50 years, the Democratic Party is listed in history books next to Whigs and Federalists.

On the day that happens, Clive, I will be saddened. But then I'll think of you, whining and sputtering and fuming ineffectively, and it'll be the silver lining on the cloud.

J.

RE: s9's post (February 23, 2005 04:25 AM)

"Conservatarian"?

As in:

Conservatarian.org - The Conservatarian Party web site. Every Conservatarian is a governor; a governor of themselves. We actively oppose the government's invasion into our lives and earnestly work to restore America back to what our forefathers had envisioned for this great country.

I've seen you use this term a number of times before, generally in derogatory context, and I just want to be clear to what you refer. Is my reference correct or do you have something else in mind?

RE: Clive "Fill-in-the-Blank" Tolson (February 23, 2005 02:42 AM)

And, do not mistake when 1 or 2 lefties like me wander into Wizbang's comments thread as challenge enough, until you try holding your own in a Daily Kos thread, and earn some respect for your opinion.

You are, of course, assuming you've earned some respect for your opinion. ;D

I'd say O.Willis and Kos are on par in attitude and vitriol. I tried to debate logically at O.Willis and it was hopeless. A thoughtful center-left blogger (Pennywit) stopped by and introduced reasonable banter after a while but the rest was an exercise in tedium. You just have to read it to believe it. I've not been back not because I couldn't take the heat but because of the futility of it all. Why waste time when blogging and blog commenting is such a time sink already?

The visitors here, while partisan and occasionally boisterous, are considerably more polite than either the O.Willis or Kos communities. I'd say Kos is off the charts but, hey, their bits and bytes - let 'em pixellate all over themselves.

I think what is worrying me, is that if the liberals in this thread don't think that the left is motivated/stuck/consumed by hatred for Bush, what would they consider hatred for Bush.

And the Dems absolutely lack a message right now. They have almost no ideas other than-"Bush is for it, so we are against it."

s9 writes:

"American politics has long been a name-calling contest"

Stupid wanker.

All points well taken. but - the Dem party has been taken over by "progressives" who are living in 1929. None of your points will be acted upon soon. Look no farther than the extremists Dr. Dean and Sen Reid as two recent "progressives" recently elected to head branches of the party.