Yeah, I agree that if we want to start change the frame, dropping the word oppressors is a good start. Reps are not oppressing us. They are wrong on countless issues, small-minded, intolerant, etc., but they are not oppressing me. My life goes on. I can post on this site to my heart's desire. I can vote for Dems whenever I please. Iraqis under Saddam were oppressed. North Koreans being starved by their government are oppressed. Refugees in East Sudan are oppressed.
I am pissed off, deeply displeased with my government, and worried about the future, but not oppressed.
Abolishing the WC is a bad idea. If we're afraid of voter fraud now, just wait until the total amount of votes in a state like Utah, which is nearly completely Republican, matters. We wouldn't have any oversight of the process in a state like that and they could generate a tremendous amount of Rep votes that would wash us out. Right now I know the worst that can happen in Utah is that their EC votes go to the Reps. What happens when they can manufacture unlimited popular votes that matter toward the result of the election?
Also, to the extnet we're afraid of the Reps playing only to their crazy base now, what will happen when they don't feel like they need to win states like Florida and Ohio? Why spend time and money appealing to at least a few centrist voters there, when a candidate can just go down to Alabama and Wyoming and drum up more votes that way?
The EC works more times than it doesn't, and in the big scheme of things I think it's a better system for Dems. I'd rather know I need 200K extra votes in Ohio than 4 million from the heartland.
I don't think we could do a hell of a lot better in NYC this time than we did, but I bet the Reps could get more votes out of the Bible Belt if they had to.
I don't understand the point. The Ukranian elections were rigged. A good guy who should have won was robbed by a Russian/oligarch hack. The Republicans were urging the Ukranian people to stand up against such actions.
Why do we criticize Reps when they are doing the right thing? They are screwing up enough things that we don't need to look for reasons to attack them when they are doing something good for a change.
After years of battering Dems with the "tax and spend" stick, they finally get control of the whole government and do this. It's sickening. I'm convinced that Dems should really positions themselves as the fiscally resonsible party. How can the Reps have any possible crediblility of this anymore???
Our platform should be: (1) roll back tax cuts for people making over $200K (just like Kerry's plan), (2) freeze all domestic spending until budget is balanced, (3) then spend money on social programs only when we actually have the money to spend, and (4) no more stupid ass wars that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
I support the recount in Ohio, but I don't understand what we prove from the exit polls.
"exit polls are rarely (if ever) divergent from the tabulated election results,"
Is that actually true? Was it true in 2000? Was it true in the California recall?
I like having recounts, but trying to read something into the exit polls seems like a dead end. So if they turn out different, what are we supposed to say, that people should believe an exit poll and not the actual results? Unless we have hard evidence of real electoral fraud, not circumstantial evidence or speculation, then we just look like bad losers.
Let's insist on recounts where we can, but then at a certain point we have to look forward and not backwards. We spent four years talking about how 2000, an election in which we really got robbed, and see where it got us. How well are we going to do if we spend another four years talking about an election in which we have no real evidence other than speculation that we got robbed?
I'm amazed at the reaction to Tim Russo. There has to be room for debate among liberals. Russo is one of us! Instead of trying to shout him down for not drinking the koolaid, we should be engaging, debating and working on new ideas.
My opinion is right now is that the liberal wing of this party is intellectually bankrupt. There seems to be little more than a consensus that war is bad and social programs are good, but I haven't heard an innovative idea since the election.
We have no position at all on social security except a general aversion to change, the best we can do for health care is say we'd like to spend more money (although the system is already completely unviable economically). I'm all for raising minimum wage, but hell, we always want to do that. Although I think many liberals had a coherent position on Iraq, kerry sure didn't. He seemed to basically say whatever he thought was politically advantageous at the time.
At times, we seem more interested in getting into office than we are in actually doing anything when we get there.
It seems like the whole focus has been on how can we organize and convey our message better instead of what new ideas can we offer people that would get them excited about us. Conservatives have new ideas all the time. Most of them are terrible, but I respect the fact that they come up with them. Last truly new idea that came from a DEM was Americorp, which was a great idea and I think it excited people.
Here's one idea I've had: school vouchers, but only for the poorest children. School vouchers for everyone would destroy public schools, but why should poor inter-city children be forced to go to shitty schools where they live in fear every day. All we do is perpetuate the poverty cycle.
Why are liberals against this? Because we are in the pocket of the teachers' unions, who don't even want to allow pilot programs because they are afraid they might work. It's shameful.
Liberals should support a comprehensive energy policy that focuses on reducing our dependence on Saudi Arabia for oil. I know we've talked about it a little, but we should make that a major issues. The Reps are in the pockets of the oil companies, but the best Dems seem to do is promise more ethanol subsidies, which is actually bad policy. A true energy policy promoting alternative fuels can make us more self-sufficient and greener without making fuel a lot more expensive.
We need a liberal equivalent of a Contract with America that doesn't involve spending the country into bankruptcy. Also, we need to stop pussying out on social issues. Kerry should have stood up for gays instead of taking the non-position he basically took.
I'm embarrassed at the responses to Tim Russo. Is dissent not allowed here? Or must we all spend the next four years blabbering about how we were robbed and how stupid the people are in kansas?
I welcome Tim Russo to these boards. I welcome anyone that wants to bring liberalism back. I welcome difference of opinion. Conservatives are the ones that stifle dissent. We liberals should welcome it.
I always assumed it was natural to despise fanatical Islam or corrupt Arab regimes that encourage violence against civilians. Violence against and subjugation of women, stoning of homosexuals, advocacy of violence against civilians, religious domination of personal and public life: as a liberal, how can I not want to see these Middle Eastern sores wiped off the face off the earth and replaced with tolerant, non-corrupt and paceful states.
This is what makes scared and ashamed at times of American "liberalism". On this board, I see so many apologies for Yasser Arafat, the man who coordinated a slaughter of children in a school and the savage murder of Israeli atheletes in 1972. I see Michael Moore's disgusting portrayal of Saddam Hussein Iraq as a utopia for kids flying kites. How is that "liberal"?
We were right to go to Kosovo and stop the brutality there, we should have gone to Rwanada, Liberia and Sudan too. We were right to destroy the Taliban, and although Bush completely fucked it up, I shed no tears for the loss of Saddam's terrible regime. No true liberal would support Mugabe or Castro, both of whom persecute any who dissent and run their countries into the ground. Yet it seems like many American liberals either condone or look away from these terrible regimes.
It disgusts me that Chirac went to Arafat's bedside and eulogizes him like a hero. It makes me understand a little more why Bush would never have gotten UN support to go to Iraq. France has never met a tyrant it didn't like.
For years, our governments, mostly Republicans (Nixon and Reagan were the worst) sustained evil right wing dictatorships around th world as part of the Cold War. This amoral policy crippled our international standing and was just plain wrong. We liberals fought on the right side of that issue back then.
So I'm absolutely stunned and saddened by how many "liberals" now seem to turn a blind eye or apologize for evil, totalitarian Middle Eastern regimes or for rank murderers like Arafat.
I will fight until I die for the right of a woman to have control over her body or for two men or women who love each other to marry. How can I not fight to end regimes around the world that won't permit a girl to go to school, a woman to drive a car, or dissenters to peacefully protest government policies?
I'll be the first to say that Israel's actions toward the Palestinians have been reprehensible at times.
But when did so many liberals decide to side with a terrorist regime over a democratic one? Why are we apologizing for arab fanatics? How is that consistent with being a liberal? Of all the oppressed people in the world, why did these become the liberal cause celebre? "Zionist"? That's basically racist terminology. It's ridiculous.
Why are liberals apologizing for Arab fanatics that walk into cafes and blow up civilians? Israel's response has been brutal and excessive, but Israel would have never been moved to take such actions if Palestinian nutjobs hadn't decided to show dissent by blowing up buses full of women and children.
In almost every Arab country I see little that is consistent with what we liberals believe in. In Israel, opponents (women and men) of the Sharon/Likud policy can protest and vote. In just about every Arab country, dissenters are rounded up and jailed, and women are basically treated like slaves.
This just makes me crazy. We fight against religious fundamentalism here at home, and then condone it when it is a hundred times worse in this Arab dictatorships and religious states.
Arafat was a racist whose career was murdering civilians. When given the opportunity for peace, he pissed it away. No liberal should mourn his passing. This was no Gandhi, no Mandela, no MLK. This was a crass killer. May he roast in hell.
I doubt a change in ownership would change Fox News. Fox is making a lot of money. Why would someone buy it and change it?
I've never minded Fox. I fully admit that at times the networks have leaned for us, and it's undisputable that most journalists are Dems. Dan Rather and the NY Times attempted to coordinate on the Bush national guard story that end up being based on forged documents. I don't have a problem with that, but we should acknowledge in this day and age that very few journalists are truly neutral.
There needs to be a conservative leaning news station, just like there should be liberal and neutral ones.