I find this interesting . The Dems ran and were successful in 2006 by running a trojan horse campaign and appearing if not outright conservative ,then centrist ala Clintoon and his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)model . That model worked well for them then ;and appeared to follow script in the 3 special elections that they won this year .

But now with the apparent nomination of Obama not only have they shed the model that is working but they have gone back to their habits of selecting from the fringe... In the case of Obama;nominating perhaps the most exteme liberal they have ever run.

Oh he pretends that he is an agent of bipartisan change... but rhetoric aside ;when performance is measured ,it is McCain who has over the years become a spur in his own party's saddle by crossing over party lines in an attempt at consensus building.

My question I guess is why would the Democrats then abandon what has worked so well for them in recent years to go back to the failed strategies of the McGovern and Mondale models ? If they thought that running on a hard liberal platform was going to succeed then why didn't they do so in 2006 ?

Dear tom

If I am correct , you would earlier prefer to die before you will ever vote democrat...
So why are you so worried for the democrats and their chances in the 2008 elections?

There were several different Democrat nominees, but the Democrat voters have selected Obama as their favourite.

Let's just see who wins this years presidential election : an old white-skinned man without ideas and lacking any charisma, or a young dark-skinned man with many new ideas and lots of charisma.

Around half or more of the Democrat voters this primary season agree with me that Obama is too radical to win. But that ,or my personal preferences were not the question.

Hello tom:

His liberalism seems to be a natural reaction to having swung so far to the right - and discovered a disaster... YES, it's the dufus in chiefs' fault.

excon

So you think they feel they are in a position that they no longer have to hide their extreme liberalism ?

Hello again, tom:

If you mean "extreme" by making sure that everybody has health insurance, that the rich don't get any more tax cuts, that the country turns a little greener, that some jobs stop going overseas, that "no child left behind" gets thrown in the trash where it belongs, that we start talking to our enemies, that we STOP torturing our prisoners, and that we FINALLY bring our soldiers home...

If THAT'S what you mean by extreme liberalism, then I don't think they're hiding at all.

excon

Oh I see . I thought NCLB was Kennedy's big initiative .

Yes universal health insurance is extreme liberalism.

Hard to say rich are getting tax cuts when the US already charges one of the highest rates of Capital Gains in the developed world.

The tax cuts created record revenues as you know.. The top 1% paid
39.4% of all Federal income taxes and the top 5% paid more into the Federal coffers than the rest of the 95% combined . The tax cuts meant that rich people paid more taxes . That should make libs happy .But instead of admitting that the tax cuts created a more progressive system ;they expose their true goal (and you too I guess) which is punish the rich for their success.

We have continued to talk to the world . What you mean is that we talk to rogue states and actors with no preconditions . We have gone over that before.

The world does not want the US to bring our soldiers home .Instead they continue to rely on us to keep the flow of commerce going and to have our soldiers wherever crisis develops .You know that to be true. They are begging for us now to go to Darfur to intervene ;they begged us to go to the Balkans where we have no national interests at all. Let's retreat to fortress America and see how quick the world asks us to engage again.

Hi again forgot to add that those job losses will rise expotentially when smoke stack industries are forced to comply with those new green laws like the cap and spend indulgences .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes universal health insurance is extreme liberalism.

---

In Canada we have universal healthcare AND we currently have a conservative government. They have no plans on abolishing our healthcare system. Your ideas are old and antiquated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Let's retreat to fortress America and see how quick the world asks us to engage again.

---

Actually that would be an interesting experiment.

Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree with your last. However, progress demands change. New technology displaces old technology. The smoke stack jobs you refer to will be replaced with new ones offered by the challenges a limited supply of oil creates...

I don't know why you're so down on the American entrepreneur. He's going to start NEW industries that will employ even MORE people than lost their jobs. That's how it works here.

And, while we're at it, access to adequate health care is part of the guarantee of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It also has something to do with "general welfare", which is ALSO guaranteed to every one of us. These words, of course, are taken directly out of our founding documents...

excon

NK
Well you have the benefit of sharing a big border with us. So it is in your interests for the US to maintain it's military strength so you can continue to pay for your nanny state universal health care. If you had to put in the resources to defend your interests then perhaps you would think twice about massive inefficient government solutions under the guise of "free" . Besides we know that if a Canadian can ,they make the trip over the border to use our system rather than wait for their turn at the rations.

EXCON
The free market works fine. I'm not the one who complained about lost jobs. I know our system is innovative enough to replace them. That is not what the libs complain about. They are no different than the people who complained that they lost their buggy whip business when autos came in . Is it the role of government to protect the jobs of the GM worker who's plant closed because they can't sell SUVs anymore?

Quote:

---

access to adequate health care is part of the guarantee of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It also has something to do with "general welfare", which is ALSO guaranteed to every one of us. These words, of course, are taken directly out of our founding documents...

---

Ex

Can you show me anywhere in the declaration the principle of the government being responsible for providing "life liberty and the persuit of happiness" ? No of course you can't . Just like you could not find a founder who would agree on such an intrusion by the government . Likewse the Constitution does not provide for the " general welfare " it claims a role in "promoting " the general welfare . A huge distinction in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

In Canada we have universal healthcare AND we currently have a conservative government. They have no plans on abolishing our healthcare system. Your ideas are old and antiquated.

---

Of course, we've been a backward nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Of course, we've been a backward nation.

---

Where did you get the idea that I was talking about inventions?? Please if you are confused just ask, OK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Where did you get the idea that I was talking about inventions???? Please if you are confused just ask, ok?

---

Geez NK, I'm not an idiot, are you? I know you weren't talking about inventions, but inventions are born of ideas and I think it's funny that you would consider the "ideas" of the country that has left such a huge technological, medical, economic and political impression on the world - antiquated. LOL, some of us are fighting for what led to that freedom, prosperity and advance as opposed to going to a "progressive" nanny state society which gives the very politicians and governments you rail against more control over our lives.

To Tom's original post: I believe that the Dems cannot ever win if they admit who they are and what they stand for. They have to do a smoke and mirror job to confuse the voters into voting for them. Additionally, I am just a bit tired of libs complaining about the tax cuts for the rich. My youngest son is a single father with 3 children, and he got a nice boost in dependent allowance and additional deductions which help make it possible for him to provide a living for his family. He and the children are a lot better off than before those Bush tax cuts for the rich. Enough of the Bovine excrement, please!

Galveston ;of course that is what I thought before yesterday. Either they made a classic blunder by nominating someone who's onion is so easy to peel ;or they are so arrogant about their chances that they don't think it matters that he is not riding inside the wooden horse.

So Tom, you believe that McCain will steamroll Obama in the general election?

Of course not The Republican brand for many reasons will take a pounding this election .But perhaps they may have stumbled on the right candidate for the time because he can credibly run against the Republican establishment as well as the extreme pole from which the Democrats drew their candidate from.Had they picked a centrist I think they could've begun to count their chickens.