# Why Democrats Lost



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Found this on another site, I find it ironic that the author is both a reporter and a person who, at least at one time, embraced the principles of the Democratic party.

M_T, ej4prmc et al.

I did not write this article, if you have a problem with the content thereof contact the author!!!
He is, after all, one of you.

huntin1

Why Democrats Lost

by Foster Childs, December 5, 2004 - Tri-County Times, Mercer Cty., NJ

The devil you know, or the devil you don't.

That's how many John Kerry supporters explained their defeat in the 2004 election.

Democrats appear to be genuinely astounded that they didn't win. Many! blame their loss on the Republican party's ability to present itself as representing people of moral values. Clearly that astounds them "How could we be perceived as the party without values" they ask.

As one who embraced many Democratic principles as recently as the election of 2000, allow me to answer.

Laura Bush has personified elegance and class as America's First Lady for four years. The Democratic party countered with a vulgar, foulmouthed, brazen billionaire with the grace of a drunken hooker. Teresa Heinz-Kerry insulted every mother in America when she snidely stated in an interview that "I doubt Laura Bush has ever held a real job." I can't envision a more ill-suited candidate to represent our country as First Lady.

To most Americans Ted Kennedy is a philandering, has-been alcoholic whose money and influence allowed him to get away with murder. To the Democratic party, Kennedy is their esteemed elder statesman.

The Democratic party's most vocal spokesperson is Michael Moore, an arrogant *** who holds America, and Americans, in utter contempt. He delights in telling the French and Germans how stupid we are. He mocks our military. He insults our president. His "Joe Average" persona is as bogus as the "facts" in his slanted books and movies. Most Americans despise him as a traitor and a slob. Yet, at the Democratic National Convention Moore was afforded the most honored seat in the house - right alongside former president Jimmy Carter.

Most Americans view gay men and women as simply fellow citizens who should be afforded the same respect as any other citizen. The Democratic party views gay men and women as a minority whose perceived "rights" should supercede the established tenets that have governed society since the beginning of time.

The majority of America understands that we must take a stand against terrorism, that terrorists are the essence of pure evil, that terrorists will always hate America and Americans, no matter what we do. The Democratic party seems to believe that if we just turn the other cheek they will go away. Their mantra of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" smacks of pacifism.

Most Americans would find an adult male who wears makeup, high heels, a wig and women's clothing to his workplace as not just creepy, but deeply disturbing. The Democratically controlled California legislature passed a law providing fines up to $150,000 for any employer who fires a man for showing up to work dressed as a woman. Every Democrat cast a 'yes' vote.

To most of America the entertainment industry is comprised primarily of dull-witted, self-absorbed twits who, under the guise of "artistic expression," fill our living rooms and our children's brains with an endless parade of depraved garbage The vociferous Tinseltown endorsement of John Kerry merely confirmed what most of America already knows - the Democratic party reflects Hollywood's moral values, not America's.

The consensus by Republicans, and a surprising number of Democrats, is near unanimous - the Democratic party is in ruins because they have chosen to align themselves with all that is wrong in America. They mock people of faith. They endorse special-interest agendas that tear apart the fabric of our Constitution. They embrace race-baiting opportunists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They support wacko organizations such as the ACLU. And, worst of all, they offer America as heroes - as people to emulate, as role-models for our children - shameless charlatans like Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore and Bill Clinton.

The answer to the question is very simple: The Democratic party is perceived as the party without moral values because they are a party without moral values.

And, as shown on November 2nd, the majority of America is finally realizing it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hunt1

I would agree with that assessment. Now the liberals can argue with me all they want, but a constant state of denial will not save their party. If they do not change their ways their path heads only one direction, downhill and steeply at that.

What we need is a new tax system. As Bobm has pointed out fair tax has a workable alternative. There may be other alternatives also. Does anyone have a site or know of a good plan for tax reform?

The democrats have a trap laying before them right now. That trap is obstructionism like Dashyl constantly employed. The current trap is the supreme court appointments about to happen. If the democrats are obstructionists when this begins many can kiss their Senate seats good by.

So, what do you people think can save the Democratic party. I see the chances of a third serious party looming on the horizon, and if they get their foot in the door the democratic party will not survive. At least they will no longer be politically relevant. I think a third party now that could gain seats in DC would in the very near future take big bites out of both parties, but most damaging by far to the democrats.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Hunt1,
I couldn't of said it any better myself. Everything in that article is fact and no liberal or Democrat can deny that. The Democrats have done themselves in by aligning themselves with Hollywood and every other extreme organization out there. I saw on the news where some Conservative Republican paid for a billboard on Sunset Blv. in Hollywood that had a big picture of President Bush smiling with the words...."Thank you Hollywood for 4 more year." In the background were the pictures of Michael Moore, Barbara Strisand, and a few other Liberal wacko's that tried as hard as they could to get the President defeated, looking all mad. I thought it was the funnestist thing I have ever seen.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

I completely agree. Eveorything that has be-fallen the Democratic party is of their own doing.

i honestly think that the Reps still would have won even if they didnt do ANY campaining. The Dems killed themselves. They finaly took off their mask, and America finaly saw how hideous the Dem party actualy is.

Perhaps The dem party will finaly disolve, and a NEW party can finaly come up. maybe then the Libertarians would have a shot! :thumb:


----------



## backhome (Oct 25, 2004)

Huntin1,

Interesting article. Published by a well known, highly regarded author and newspaper I see. I think his "Devil you know versus the devil you don't know" observation is correct. It doesn't say much about Kerry. I guess Bush would be the devil we know.....quite an endorsement for him.

The article talks about Laura Bush, Hollywood dimwits, etc. Why do you suppose the author does not talk about the results of the first four years of the Bush administration? That would seem like a relavant issue in a pro republican , anti dem article, wouldn't it? Maybe it's because the current republican administration has produced zero positive results. I guess he did speak to the war....something about democrats being pacifists. I am sure some dems are pacifists. I think there are plenty of republicans that aren't completely sure the war was the right thing also....at least the republicans that I know.

Plenty was said about the exteme democrats like Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, etc. I am not a fan of the far left dems. I think the republican party has plenty of extreme right wingers that are out of touch with the mainstream of the party too. I'm sure Tom Delay makes all republicans proud.

My last observation has to do with Clinton. Think what you want about him and his morals, or lack thereof. The eight years of his administration were prosperous....very different from the last four years with Bush in DC. We will never know, but I am pretty certain that Clinton would have won by a landslide in both 2000 and 2004 against Bush if he would have been able to run.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Backhome

You say your not a fan of the far left, but to misinterpret as bad as you have would require a radical left perspective ie "Devil you know versus the devil you don't know". What the man was saying was the Kerry we know vs. the Kerry we don't know. After all this article was about what is wrong with the democratic party. It isn't hard to figure out why they didn't talk about Bush. For the same reason they didn't talk about Einstein's theory of relativity.

As far as Clinton and prosperity I hope a dollar isn't worth that much to Americans that they would have voted for him again. Furthermore, if Clinton would have been in office on 9/11 I think we would be in trouble right now. He ignored the terrorists, but that doesn't work anymore. Considering what has happened since Bush took office the economy is doing spectacular.

I do agree with you that both parties have extremists. Hunt1 posted a humorous article called how to be a good democrat, and Bigdaddy followed with how to be a good republican. Both these articles pointed to these two extremes. If you could rate liberal vs. conservative on a one to ten scale liberal being one I would guess that as sportsmen people on this site would fall the full gamut with 99 percent falling between 4 to 8. Slightly skewed to conservative because of the second amendment and hunting.


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

There are some people in the Dem party that do understand what happend this last election. Hilary is setting herself up as a VERY moderate democrat. She hasn't spoken out against the war in Iraq, but hasn't supported it (incase something REAL ugly occurs). She has defended Isreals right to build the fence between itself and Palastine. Has never publically admonished the current administration about its bad ties with some European nations. And hasn't been near a Million Mom event for several years. As a conservative, not a Republican, I have to say the the republican party is doing itself a great disservice if it doesn't take notice of Hillary immediately. She is a TRUE politician.

On the subject of Clinton. He didn't create the great economic times. The advancements in computers and web technology created it. Name one single economic endevor of Clintons administration. There is one, Nothing. He and congress did nothing to impede the growth. I give Greenspan more credit for the good, and bad, of what has happened in the last 15 years than any single politician. And I firmly believe that Reagan would of trounced Bush I, Clinton both times, and Bush II with both hands tied behind his back, and I'm not a big supporter of his.

IaHunter


----------



## the_duckinator (Jan 9, 2005)

"The Clinton economy produced great results. The raw numbers - 22 million new jobs created, 116 uninterrupted months of economic growth, a $237 billion budget surplus, and the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years - are impressive. Of even greater significance, however, was the sheer excitement of participating in an economy transformed by the Internet and leavened by a rising stock market that made millionaires of so many workers.

Two brilliant decisions propelled the success of the Clinton economy. First, Clinton recognized and tackled the greatest fear of the bond market, that a tax-and-spend Clinton would fuel inflation. Clinton assuaged that fear with a $500 billion deficit-reduction program that convinced the bond market that inflation would drop. This unleashed an extended bond market rally that lowered long term interest rates - setting the backdrop for one of the greatest investment booms in history.

Second, Clinton backed high technology because its leaders backed him. Specifically, 30 Silicon Valley CEOs endorsed Clinton for president in 1992. As a payback Clinton introduced proposals that benefited Silicon Valley. In particular, his tax proposals favored entrepreneurs, his job-training programs re-educated American workers, and his concept of infrastructure extended into high-tech communication. The most visible symbol of Clinton's commitment to technology was his proposal for a "fiber-optic highway" to link homes, offices, libraries and businesses into a huge interstate database.

As it turned out, the combination of low long-term interest rates and policies to induce high technology investment unleashed a period of unprecedented wealth creation."--Peter Cohan

Advancements in technology DID help Clinton. Those advancements in technology didn't solely create the prosperous economy, which was a heck of a lot better than Bush's right now. Average income for middle class homes is $1,525 less. The labor force participation rate-the percentage of people either working or looking for work-fell in Jan. 2005 to a seasonally adjusted 65.8 percent, the lowest rate since 1988. In his first State of the Union address, Bush spoke of his plan to pay off over the next decade the entire $2 trillion debt held by the public at that time. He said, "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now." As it stands today, the debt is on track to reach the $6.5 trillion mark by 2011.

During the first three years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the unemployment rate increased by one-third and 2.2 million jobs were lost, and the country has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. Debt has increased 23% from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion. Bush recently restated his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs, stating "5.6% unemployment is a good national number." However, the New York Times recently uncovered a White House report indicating that the president is considering reclassifying low-paid fast-food jobs as higher-paid manufacturing jobs to make it appear like the unemployment rate is going down.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Its realy easy for you to say that now isnt it. i suppose you would have been perfect. not to mention that a little thing called 9/11 is STILL being felt by our economy.

but, in the end, i bow to your infinate spring of economic judgement and hindsite. You sir, are truely the greatest economic genious of our day! the likes of greenspan is nothing compared to your sheer brilliance. how blessed we are to be graced with your astoundingly wise and knowledgable presence.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

mr.trooper said:


> but, in the end, i bow to your infinate spring of economic judgement and hindsite. You sir, are truely the greatest economic genious of our day! the likes of greenspan is nothing compared to your sheer brilliance. how blessed we are to be graced with your astoundingly wise and knowledgable presence.


So the guy comes in here with some pretty good dialogue and some facts to back it up and that is your rebuttal? C'mon troopie, just because he doesn't see things as you do through your vast and worldy experience? What do you have to offer other than your biting sarcasm and hatred for anything that isn't right wing? You gotta have a better rebuttal than that, do you?

I guess I am truly blessed to be in the shadow of your intellectual might as well.

RC


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> The Clinton economy produced great results. The raw numbers - 22 million new jobs created, 116 uninterrupted months of economic growth, a $237 billion budget surplus, and the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years - are impressive. Of even greater significance, however, was the sheer excitement of participating in an economy transformed by the Internet and leavened by a rising stock market that made millionaires of so many workers.


Much of the wealth and job creation where the result of do nothing, produce nothing DOT COM.s Hence the term non sustainable growth which resulted in the DOT com start up market seeing the most loss in dollars on investment and job loss. Much of that due in large part from no over site. The result the start of a recession in Clinton's last year.

Now let us talk about the so call budget surplus and the resulting change we have had. No one in the Gov did any projections taking into account a declining economy that came about from the Enron scandal that started under Clinton's watch, or others like it. No one anticipated the events of 9/11 nor it's impact on additional spending for security and preparedness that we have had to do.

All in all the numbers for GW first term where at or above those of Clinton's. Both presided over the recovery from a recession. Neither have stellar Conservation efforts, only one signed legislation restricting what type of gun I can or cannot own.



> During the first three years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the unemployment rate increased by one-third and 2.2 million jobs were lost, and the country has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. Debt has increased 23% from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion. Bush recently restated his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs, stating "5.6% unemployment is a good national number.


I addressed much of what caused the jump in unemployment and the change from a surplus to a deficit budget, but the one underlying fact is that it is the entitlement programs that have really been the reason for the deficit rising. Fixed spending of which Bush has little control over nor even the Congress. I will say though that Bush did add to the entitlement fiasco with the Prescription drug bill. Congress has been on a spending spree also, with no spending constraints coming from either side.

Case in point is the Highway bill. It exploded as each Sen got his share of the Pork and then some. If no tax cuts had been given and all the proposed spending had gone through we would be seeing a 2 trillion dollar deficit, of which both parties are responsible for.

Now with the election behind him Bush has offered up a reduced spending budget that is being ripped because he is proposing less of an increase than what has been given in the past. Only in Washington is an increase seen as a cut!


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

The fear of a tax and spend Clinton was well justified as seen by the health care proposal his wife was the head of. Fortuanately there was an uprising amonst the public who still cared to vote and turned control of congress over to the Republicans to force Clinton more to the middle in everything, socially and economically, and helped in the deficit reduction. If it was Clinton with a Democrat controlled congress all 8 years do you really believe we would of seen the same deficit reduction? I doubt we would of seen any.

30 Silicon CEO's endorsed Clinton....out of how many companies? There were, and are, hundreds of companies that comprise Silicon Valley. And it was the computer that was the economic engine. Computers are responsible for the major increase in productivity that the industrial workplace saw during the 90's. Yes, a lower interest rate helped companies with the financing of the upgrades, but the lower interest rates were also needed to help keep deflation in check, and that is Alan Greenspans doing. Without computers and computer related technology, the roaring 90's would of made Japan look like an economic tiger.

And the job tranfers to overseas was started during the Clinton Administration and they did absolutely nothing when it would of been the easiest time to take care of the problem. Now we have a deeply imbedded problem. Do you think that the company that is making the most off of outsourcing is from Arkansas, i.e.; Wal-Mart? Just wanted people to think about it.

But I am impressed with your information duckinator, you seem like an intelligent, reasonably sane and articulate person, unlike someone else on this site. Personally, I'm just a dumb, ignorant, ******* factory worker who doesn't understand the complexities of the world.

IaHunter


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Bill Clinton was the *BEST REP. PRES. THIS COUNTRY EVER HAD* and he ran on a Dem. ticket


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

ej4prmc

"Bill Clinton was the BEST REP. PRES. THIS COUNTRY EVER HAD and he ran on a Dem. ticket"

Ummmmmmmm.....Okie Dokie. I think that we might have a slight difference in definition here, and opinion. Did we pass over Abe and Teddy during history lessons?

IaHunter[/quote]


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

ej4prmc said:


> Bill Clinton was the *BEST REP. PRES. THIS COUNTRY EVER HAD* and he ran on a Dem. ticket


You seem to have a very blurred line of what is liberal and what is conservative. Clinton was most certainly a liberal, but he was far ahead of his time, one of the fiscally conservative liberals that are just beginning to show up en masse now.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

You people crack me up. Mr. Clinton had a Rep. cong. and sen. to deal with and YET he got most things passed. Wake up. OHHHH by the way he never lied. IF you were to study the reason behind him saying he did not have sexual rel. with that girl is becuase in the court case where his testamony came from sexual rel. was defined as having INTERCOURSE and we all know he only got BJ's from Monica, so no HE NEVER LIED


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

ej4prmc said:


> You people crack me up. Mr. Clinton had a Rep. cong. and sen. to deal with and YET he got most things passed. Wake up. OHHHH by the way he never lied. IF you were to study the reason behind him saying he did not have sexual rel. with that girl is becuase in the court case where his testamony came from sexual rel. was defined as having INTERCOURSE and we all know he only got BJ's from Monica, so no HE NEVER LIED


Not sure if I should :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: or uke: uke: uke: :eyeroll:


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

But yet everything I say is the truth


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

IAHunter

You first post was a very good assessment. I fear you are absolutely right about Hillary. The bad part is people have no memory. She was the one that called for Israel to give up land to the Palestinians. The Jewish people of New York then voted for her. Now she supports Israel? My fear is that there are enough dumb people to think she really is changing. Some pro firearms sportsmen will walk into that voting booth like a dumb cow to slaughter.

Ej4prmc

I am sure you think what you say is the truth, but I don't think you would recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit you in the a$$. I know I am pro conservative (not republican) and readily admit it. You however don't realize how left biased you are. That is why debate is impossible with you and MT you can not see what is readily evident to so many. You are so biased that you are in a state of denial. Well intentioned I would lay money on, but blind to truth.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> That is why debate is impossible with you and MT you can not see what is readily evident to so many. You are so biased that you are in a state of denial.


Par usual for you Plainsman, talking points over substance. I can only hope this is just a phase for you and your party.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Yes i have another rebute.

Its all fine and dandy for him to come in here and say exactly how soemone sould run the economy, but you know what? it doesnt alwase work like it does in you high-school text book. its more complicted than that. not to mention that presidents get WAY to much credit for makingthe economy good or bad.

Clinton was NOT the driving force behind the good economy of the times, and Bush is NOT the driving force behind the sluggish economy of today.

You can say that its all because of some government program, but that last time i checked, Government programs were tha biggest factor in the over-whelming debt that our nation has accumulated over the years (notice YEARS, as in MORE THAN THE LAST 4)

So THATS why im so critical of what this guy said. NOT because he is right or left wing, and NOT becuse i think i know more than he does. Its becuause we now have another poster who thinks he knows it all about an issue, and its starting to tick me off. none of us know even half of what goes on, or why the economy does what it does, and i dont think we should be pretending that we do.

How's that Robbert? Is it to harsh for you? Whats wrong with the obvious this time? Whats your reason for supporting this guy? could it be that he has similar beliefs to yours, and so your willing to let him play the "expert"? I hope not.

So what am i guilty of this time? Did i go outside your comfy little ideas? Are you mad that i am speaking up? Am i a "trouble maker" because im voicing an oppinion that is contrary to what you like?

Whats the problem Robert? Am i not allowed to express myself as so many of your buddies do? Do i not have the same rights? i guess not.

Guess what? I havnt dirrectly attacked or slandered anyone. iv mearly pointed out the obvios fact that none of us know SQUAT about this, and none of us can claim to. What was your responce? YOU decided to rail me about how i did so, and tsaid that i was jsut attacking him becuase he snt "right wing".

So i guess im just a "right wing" hate monger Aye Robert? I guess i just fly off and attack anyone who isnt "right wing" jsut beacause they arnt like me?

WRONG! i Fly off and attack people who present miss-leading information, and retaliate against people who attack me for saying something about it.

Good day Robbert.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Ej4prmc
> 
> I am sure you think what you say is the truth, but I don't think you would recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit you in the a$$. I know I am pro conservative (not republican) and readily admit it. You however don't realize how left biased you are. That is why debate is impossible with you and MT you can not see what is readily evident to so many. You are so biased that you are in a state of denial. Well intentioned I would lay money on, but blind to truth.


So what is not the truth? Everything in my post is the truth, yet all you can do is TRY and degrade me, but like the nasty rep. party you try and spin it, well sit and spin.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ej4prmc said:


> But yet everything I say is the truth


My point is I don't think any of us have all the answers like you think you do. When you say that everything you say is the truth you are essentially saying that everything you say is fact. As hard as everyone tries when it comes to politics we are all going to make mistakes. Many people mislead on purpose, hence I don't think the very best, most intelligent people in this nation know all the facts. You say everything you say is the truth, I say I smell BS, and really deep too.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I read the following. "The answer to the question is very simple: The Democratic party is perceived as the party without moral values because they are a party without moral values." Come on....How dumb is this! I don't believe this any more than I believe that "the Republican party is perceived as the party with moral values because they are a party with moral values." Morals don't follow party lines. If you claim they do then you are self righteous and narrow-mindedly moralistic and being self righteous my friend is immoral. Thanks for disproving your original statement.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

DJRooster said:


> I read the following. "The answer to the question is very simple: The Democratic party is perceived as the party without moral values because they are a party without moral values." Come on....How dumb is this! I don't believe this any more than I believe that "the Republican party is perceived as the party with moral values because they are a party with moral values." Morals don't follow party lines. If you claim they do then you are self righteous and narrow-mindedly moralistic and being self righteous my friend is immoral. Thanks for disproving your original statement.


I would agree with you for the most part, DJ. Morally speaking was Bill Clinton any worse than someone like Richard Nixon? Probably not. I would say, though, that the democratic party comes down on the side of what a majority of people in this country consider immoral, or maybe I should say, controversial behavior. The liberal mindset is *more* accepting of certain things in general. Homosexuality, abortion, legalized drugs (to some extent) to name a few. I am not saying that every liberal believes in these things, but there is a number of folks that do. Is it wrong? I'm in no position to judge, but I think it is what a slim majority of the people in this country perceive.


----------

