Well said. The Democratic base seems to be perpetually animated by Vietnam and Watergate. The whole idea of a protest-driven political strategy seems very irrelevant to the challenges facing us today. The image of aging hippies preaching from behind a bong is not something that is going to motivate anyone in the future, especially not young workers and professionals. The Democrats need to grow up.

And the Republicans need to remember to treat their supporters like they ARE grown up. That seems to be THEIR weakness. Congrats, guys. Now that you've won, let's see you win this war and set the country straight economically and security-wise, not take this as a mandate to preach to us about moral issues. We voted for you because we wanted to see the war prosecuted and our country made safe, not because we want a religious revival in our political systems.

"By the next election, Republicans will have dominated government for a long enough period of time to be held accountable for the state of the union at that point."

Well, it's nice to know that they'll take responsibility at some point. One of the silver linings of the democratic defeat in both the presidency and the congress is that they can't be tied to any problem in government. The deficit, NK, Iran, Iraq, China, foreign relations. All of it you guys own.

Though somehow I suspect any failures over the next four years will be the fault of democrats despite their lack of control over ANY branch of government (even the military is basically republican).

Sorry, Ohio was about gay marriage. There is little evidence to show that it was about war.

Sorry, Ohio was about gay marriage. There is little evidence to show that it was about war.

The deficit, NK, Iran, Iraq, China, foreign relations. All of it you guys own.

Well, that's a positive approach to the those (major, life-threatening to all Americans)problems: you solve it, we don't have to bother being constructive, we'll just say whatever you do is wrong and everything will be your fault.

That's also a recepie for irrelevance and electoral defeat if ever there was one. And also a way of surrendering the objection that Bush is "devisive."

And, of course, the Democrats can be tied to problems in government which result from their intransigence.

I had a most interesting discussion last evening with a few friends -- none of which are "in the pocket" one way or the other.

The idea that began to gather its own momentum was the rise of a "Rational American Party", defined as a conservative group that

• Pro-women's rights
• Pro-minority representation (see "neutral" below)
• Pro-labor
• Pro-business
• Pro "strong America"
• Pro education
• Pro Internationalist (see tranzi's below)
• Pro technology
• Pro bio-research
• Pro environment [including WORLD compliance]
• Pro fishery conservation
• Pro Energy non-reliance research

• Anti State + Religion Interaction
• Anti Defamation
• Anti Transnationalist
• Anti Protectionist
• Anti Entitlement

• Neutral Gay Issues
• Neutral Minority Issues
• Neutral Oil Interests
• Neutral Taxation
• Neutral Balanced Budget
• Neutral Health Costs & Benefits
• Neutral Digital Rights

The thought was that this kind of platform would not at all be inconsistent or untenable to talk about. It isn't schizophrenic, and it is pretty consistent with how the 20-30-40 year olds of this country feel. There is a lot of falderall about Gay Marriage (which gets the religious bunch up in arms, as does Womens Reproductive Rights, Darwin's Evolution, and so on), but in the end, although it gets a lot of press, I think the average voter is a LOT happier with a state that take no particular position on the issue -- BECAUSE the issues need to be resolved by the religious leaders, not the politicians.

Even "oil" needs to be neutral itself: a platform of eventual oil independence is still "neutral" today: proposing a 1 cent-a-month progressive 'alternative energy and deep strategic oil reserve tax' would get the backing of most of the country. Slow enough to not be 'taxing', but fast enough to get results.

I know one thing: I would certainly join such a party, or at least, I would vote the candidate in.

And from what I can tell, so would 60% of democrats, and 45% or more of republicans. We're TIRED AS HELL about the divisive polity.

GoatGuy

GoatGuy,

Your proposed party looks like Democrat Lite. I'm not seeing nearly half of R's leaving the fold for it; they certainly didn't leave in those kind of numbers for Clinton. Especially if abortion or affirmative action is a prominent part of the platform.

And you need more details. Just point me to any major-party politician who ran on an "anti-education" platform.

Rob Lyman,

Zuh? Dems may have ideas for tackling all those problems, but they effectively lack the power of legislation or executive order. What do you think it means to control both houses and the presidency (not to mention the Supreme Court and a mostly sympathetic military).

You guys wanted the helm of the ship, and now you got it. The dems are now nothing more than passengers on a ship they desperately hope will not turn out to be the Titanic.

True, dingo, but presumably they haven't all lost their voices. Constructive criticism of Republican policy (rather than nonsensical "made up in Texas" blowhardism or simply "Whatever it is, I'm against it" contraianism) will both make policy better an give the Democrats a shot at winning again.

Your "you own it" post suggest that you don't want to bother trying to be construtive, just to pin blame on the other side. That is, frankly, a position which is bad for both the Democratic party and the country. If I misinterpreted you, sorry.

See, I don't get it. If the pubs want to change overtime regs, and the dems says, "Don't change it because you're going to screw too many people out of overtime"- is that constructive criticism?

People disagree over policy. That's the nature of politics. Just like the continual disparagement of democratic opposition on policy grounds as 'bush hating' is all part of political move to quiet all criticism, not to encourage some kind of dialog or compromise.

I expect dems to oppose Bush's policies. The thing is, given the current situation there's not a whole lot they can do.

Dems believe Kerry lied and would pull out of Iraq -- love it. Never heard the observation before, but it has the loud ring of truth.

given the current situation there's not a whole lot they can do.

That doesn't absolve them of a responsibility to think seriously about the issues and propose the best solutions they can. "It's Bush's problem, not ours" doesn't cut it. Neither does "It's all Bush's fault," in the event that they haven't proposed credible alternative ideas.

Dingo:

Additionally, you can't absolve the Dems from the current situation. Had the Dems offered solutions instead of grievances (ie: been for something rather than against everything), they might not have lost so much power. Thus, Dems aren't absolved. They failed to provide an alternative.

Dingo, While I agree with you that not all opposition to the administration's policies is mindless Bush-hating, you have to admit there's a lot of mindless Bush-hating out there. When a guy tries to run over Kathleen Harris and then claims he was exercising his right to political expression, I think we have a problem. True, that's a rare extreme, but many with your point of view have engaged in its verbal equivalent (MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, most university humanities or social science professors, etc.) I won't make knee-jerk accusations of Bush-bashing everey time I disagree with someone, but I won't hesitate to call it if I see it.

Cicero, I can see that we're thinking along similar lines.

As I said, dems have policy arguments just like pubs. They didn't convince enough people to agree with them, so they didn't win control of the bus. But that doesn't mean they didn't have plans or policies. It seems to me that what bothers you guys is that if things go pear shaped, you've got nobody but your own policies and decisions to blame, simply because those are the policies that have been put into effect over the past two years and will be put through over the next 2-4.

And Fred, for every mindless Bush hater I can point to to some guy who can't write a sentence without putting a "John Effin' Kerry" into it. And Ann Coulter and Limbaugh and Savage and all the rest of the various right-wing mouth organs ain't exactly the soul of reasoned debate either, if you get my drift. Can we agree that both sides have their less than savory proponents?

Rob Lyman: That doesn't absolve them of a responsibility to think seriously about the issues and propose the best solutions they can ...

The Kerry Campaign made no attempt to seriously address the issues of the country. Instead, they went looking for a new country that existed only in their imagination.

The GOTV was supposed to deliver that - a blank slate of new voters who would supposedly vote for Democrats, because that's what "new" and "young" voters are supposed to do.

Why the new, young voters were supposed to do this - other than out of sheer ignorance - was not clear. But Kerry was not about making things clear, he was about fudging and obscuring things.

The Republicans have had control of the Senate, the House and the Presidency for four years. The President has only listened to those Republicans whom sworn fealty to him on his social and tax cut programs. He hasn't listened to McCain, Hagel, Warner and Lugar about Iraq. After this you expect him to do the hard work of his "intentions" and stay in Iraq. He is going to let Iraq and America bleed because he knows his intention is to exploit fear. To expect him to come to grips with the divided nation that at every opportunity he has exploited for political gain isn't realistic.

All Bush's win has guaranteed is that there will be a civil war in this country. The economic divide that has been occuring since 1996 will continue. Backdoor attacks on the civil and ecoonomic liberties through passage of anti-gay marriage laws into state consititutions which gut the rights of heterosexual couples as well as gay ones(read the amendment for Georgia,Michigan and Ohio(even the states senators® came out against theirs' for this reason). The quality of education will continue to decline for all public schoolers and subsequent economic opportunity because passsing a test is not the same as being able to think. But it is all OK while I await my final salvation in the afterlife.

Yes that is mocking all the moral values you Reds hold so dear. You must be mocked and derided because economic reality is what is closing on your values. Being against gay-marriage abortion or any thing else of Caesar's you choose will not bring you health insurance, an ability to compete for good wages or a public school education. Only expanding the economic pie will do that.

Bush believe that the pie is fixed or should only be expanded if an oligarachical few control it. He understands that an expanding pie gives legitimacy to social ideas frowned on in the past because of their economic utility; i.e. expansion of the economic pie and it challenges the oligarchy's control of the pie. So when a structural economic shift is occuring and in itself causes social unease in the USA it becomes easier and easier to deal w/ the fallout by placing the blame on new secular social ideas instead of dealing with the changing situation. When these changes at home intersects with economic structural changes in the rest of the world, especially in those parts of the world where secular ideas are even more feared and reaction to them more violent the possiblity of ruling by fear is even easier. When reactionary forces outside of the USA attack us at home the easiest opportunity to rule by fear and appeal to some sort of jingoistic political plan occurs.

Reds swallow this shortsighted thinking hook line and sinker. The rest of us are still unwilling to give up our secular freedoms at home to stop extremists abroad. We are not for gutting government services that benefit us all to give tax relief to 1% of the population at home.

Dingo

"Can we agree that both sides have their less than savory proponents?"

That's what people here at WoC have been saying for a long time. People here at WoC have called a spade a spade regardless of political affiliation. Why do you think we spend our time here?

I for one have found WoC refreshing simply because we can all voice our opinions in a civil manner and present evidence of why we believe the way we do. What I find here at WoC is we all agree on a majority of issues and those we don’t agree on most of us are willing to compromise with healthy debate.

Given my views on civil unions I’m certainly not a right wing nut.
Given my views on women's rights or abortion you could definitely say I don’t toe the hardball political line.
Given my views on religious tolerance though, most would say the others don’t matter and I am hardball political line because I wont deny the people their beliefs. Regardless of my own religious beliefs.
I’m not averse to equal opportunity but I am averse to providing blanket opportunity based solely on skin color, sex or sexual orientation. IE I want limits. You need more than just those qualifications to apply. Jesse Jackson’s offspring shouldn’t get preferential treatment nor should Opra Winfrey, Rosie O’Donnell or Chi Chi Rodriguez for that matter. Why do I think this way? Those I just mentioned can pay their own way and make it on their own. Once someone is designated as being less than equal their status never changes regardless of circumstance. Why is that? Why should a Mexican American that makes $150,000 year get preferential treatment for promotion, job security, education grants, contract preference? Where do you draw the line and say sorry you no longer qualify?

For all of these things WoC has let me air my views, If I’ve managed to convince others that’s fine. If I haven’t that’s fine too. Not once though have I been told your thoughts, your views are not welcome.

Thank you Joe and the staff as well as the participants here at WoC for allowing me my own little voice.

Dingo,
Yeah, we can agree on that, though we may disagree about the number and intensity of lunatics on each other's side. I haven't read Ann Coulter, so I can't comment. But I have to admit that while I certainly don't take Rush Limbaugh seriously as a thinker, I do find him entertaining as a sort of stand up comedian. Looked at that way, maybe he becomes less threatening.

The wild-eyed Michael Moorish conspiracy approach to politics has failed the democrats. For those unwilling to break the addiction, they might consider a very long vacation on the west coast of Mexico. Ask Michael Moore for the funds if you are lacking. I'm sure a selfless person like himself will help you out.

USMC

Good post and accurate I think. Although on rare occasions visiting here I've seen some rather timely topics simply ignored that's just human nature.

I don't hold out a lot of hope in a great unification post Nov. 2nd. I can only base my judgement on the past and it's not at all reassuring.

But I am willing to watch and wait. And keep an open mind on the second Bush administration. Does that mean I'll forget the first? Absolutely not. But a lot of the failures of this administration can be traced directly back to it's leadership.

Why don't we have a new energy bill? I dare anyone to claim it's because of obstruction from the left.

And frankly, the single biggest mistake of Bush's first four years can be traced directly to a lack of honest objection from the left.

You can probably guess what that is.

Well.

Hmm. Not what I expected, or wanted to happen.

This is the voice of the ruling party.

I especially like " ...It is time for the majority to be heard.” He said he hopes Republicans will focus on changing the budget process, reforming Medicare and Social Security, defining marriage as between a man and woman and banning RU-486, a pharmaceutical used to induce an abortion."

Cicero, does this seem like a statement of a party focused on the issues you find important? You can have them, I say.

For what it's worth, I'm glad that there was no drawn out process for who was elected. I fully accept that George Bush has now been elected as POTUS. I consider this the first legitimate time he HAS been elected, and at least, I don't feel outraged that an election has been robbed, as I felt in 2000..

Sad and disappointed yes, but not robbed. The american people have spoken, and I accept that decision.