The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

[Fawkin'Injun]

Without I-net taxation local jurisdictions will have to get more aggressive when it comes to property taxes as Wal-Mart slowly goes out of business...

And they already kilt Main street!

I used to be against it, but without it, you and I will be footing the bill for Thumper, the Bucks on the reservation, and LT.

 

[Ishmael]

I used to be against it, but without it, you and I will be footing the bill for Thumper, the Bucks on the reservation, and LT.

We already are. Look at your phone/cable bill.

Fully 50% of my basic service bill is taxes.

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

That's my problem. I never read bills. I just pay them. Like most Americans who don't care about how much they earn, just what they take home...

 

[Ishmael]

That's my problem. I never read bills. I just pay them. Like most Americans who don't care about how much they earn, just what they take home...

If everyone just kept track of how much they spent on taxes for just one month. What an eye-opener that would be.

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

I think that's why the flat tax is so appealing to so many people but it's not a good enough reason for me. I'd like for everyone to be vested in the system.

 

[Ishmael]

I think that's why the flat tax is so appealing to so many people but it's not a good enough reason for me. I'd like for everyone to be vested in the system.

I'm not no "flat taxer." I be a "Consumin' Taxer."

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Well the flat tax seems to be working in REDWAVE's mother country...

So you KNOW I view it as some sort of commie plot since those fawkers never, ever really went away.

They just put the KGB in charge of the families!

 

[Ishmael]

Well the flat tax seems to be working in REDWAVE's mother country...

So you KNOW I view it as some sort of commie plot since those fawkers never, ever really went away.

They just put the KGB in charge of the families!

I guess a thread on taxation is inorder. I was going to wait until early April but what the hell?

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Hey did you see the news about the Texas Democrat defecting to the Republicans?



I think there's gonna be a lot of the going on in the South. I call it the Dean effect. Every time he goes south of the Mason-Dixon line, we're gonna get more of that sort of thing!

 

[Ishmael]

Hey did you see the news about the Texas Democrat defecting to the Republicans?



I think there's gonna be a lot of the going on in the South. I call it the Dean effect. Every time he goes south of the Mason-Dixon line, we're gonna get more of that sort of thing!

Now that ole Zell laid down the law, yup.

And that's too bad too in a way. I do believe in the two party system. I think it's healthy to have reasoned debate. But the Dems have been getting zanier and zanier year by year. Groups are given a voice and power within the Party that would have been laughed at 20 - 40 years ago.

When I look at the Democratic Party these days the first thing that comes to mind is a carnival side show.

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Don't worry. As soon as the Republicans become rediculous and corrupt, people will flee to another party just like now. I mean, when was the last time you saw a Whig?

 

[Ishmael]

Don't worry. As soon as the Republicans become rediculous and corrupt, people will flee to another party just like now. I mean, when was the last time you saw a Whig?

Yup, ebb and flow.

Ishmael

 

[ruminator]

Don't worry. As soon as the Republicans become rediculous and corrupt, people will flee to another party just like now. I mean, when was the last time you saw a Whig?

Hey, what are we waiting for?

The party started already. Maybe this is part of how they get them to switch.

AUSTIN, Texas — Authorities are conducting a criminal investigation into whether corporate money, including hundreds of thousands of dollars linked to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, improperly financed the Republican Party's takeover of the Texas Capitol.
The probe is focused on several political and fund-raising organizations run by Republican activists, investigators said. One organization, the political-action committee Texans for a Republican Majority, has direct ties to DeLay, a Texas Republican and one of Washington's most powerful politicians.

At issue is whether the organizations improperly used corporate contributions to help finance the campaigns of more than 20 GOP candidates for the Texas House in 2002, according to documents and interviews with prosecutors and government investigators.

Many campaign-finance watchdog organizations believe the investigation is a test of whether "soft money" — unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals — began playing a more direct role in state and local elections.

Such donations were outlawed at the national level by a campaign-finance reform law, recently upheld by the Supreme Court, but the measure does not ban contributions at the state level. Reform advocates worry that soft-money donors will begin contributing at the state level to curry favor and advance their causes.

Texas law bans corporations from contributing money to candidates for office. Corporations are allowed to fund many ancillary costs of a political campaign, such as office rental or telephone lines, and in many cases are allowed to educate voters through advertisements and other programs, provided they do not specifically advocate a candidate's defeat.

Texans for a Republican Majority is an offshoot of DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority, created in 1994 to elect conservatives to public office. The Texas group was created in 2001, with the 2002 elections in mind, using seed money from Americans for a Republican Majority.

Investigators said they suspect that the Texas group spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on telephone banks and other initiatives during the election — projects, they said, that went beyond the administrative costs that corporations are allowed to fund in Texas elections. The money, in effect, represented a direct contribution to candidates, they argue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2001828930_gop03.html

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Now that ole Zell laid down the law, yup.

And that's too bad too in a way. I do believe in the two party system. I think it's healthy to have reasoned debate. But the Dems have been getting zanier and zanier year by year. Groups are given a voice and power within the Party that would have been laughed at 20 - 40 years ago.

When I look at the Democratic Party these days the first thing that comes to mind is a carnival side show.

Ishmael

Wesley Pruden's column from yesterday:

That's what terrifies the Democratic barons now. They see how Howard Dean and the noisy pothead left can remake their party, and, unlike the youthful Republicans who powered Barry Goldwater to the nomination in 1964, will remake it into a permanent minority party — a caucus of gays, feminists, angry blacks and any other bellyacher with a nurtured grievance or unrequited gripe. Not even Hillary could revive it.

I don't agree with him, but it's an interesting observation.

 

[Wrong Element]

The latest CNN/Time poll shows Bush ahead of Dean 51-46. That's pretty far away from landslide territory.

I think one of the consequences of the splintering of the media environment (thinking here of talk radio and websites that cater to particular points of view) is that people tend to surround themselves only with like-minded folk, and as a result are always shocked to find out that millions and millions of Americans don't agree with them. If you watch Fox News and listen to Rush and post on Free Republic, the idea that anyone out there dislikes Bush would seem unthinkable.

But as I was saying the other day, I think it's still a pretty divided country, though Bush does go into the campaign with the typical incumbent's advantage.

 

[ruminator]

The latest CNN/Time poll shows Bush ahead of Dean 51-46. That's pretty far away from landslide territory.

I think one of the consequences of the splintering of the media environment (thinking here of talk radio and websites that cater to particular points of view) is that people tend to surround themselves only with like-minded folk, and as a result are always shocked to find out that millions and millions of Americans don't agree with them. If you watch Fox News and listen to Rush and post on Free Republic, the idea that anyone out there dislikes Bush would seem unthinkable.

But as I was saying the other day, I think it's still a pretty divided country, though Bush does go into the campaign with the typical incumbent's advantage.

This also leads to a subtle manipulation that feeds the misconceptions. I'm sure both sides do it, but I'm a long time Fox viewer, I like to have my thinking challenged, and their's is quite obvious.

When conducting and reporting on polls from their website, Fox will then claim what Americans think, when it's safe to say that people who vote on Fox News website polls are more likely to be their just viewers. If they would at least put some disclaimer or change their identifying terms, I think it would give them a measure of credibility.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Dec. 18-21, 2003. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

"Are you more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supported going to war with Iraq, or for a candidate who opposed going to war with Iraq?" Options rotated

12/03 (1) Supported (2) Opposed (3) No Difference (vol.) (4) No Opinion
(1)(2)(3)(4)
% % % %
57 35 6 2

"Are you more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who wants to keep the recent federal tax cuts in place, or for a candidate who wants to reduce or repeal the recent federal tax cuts?" Options rotated

12/03 (1) Keep Reduce or (2) Repeal (3) No Difference (vol.) (3) No Opinion
(1)(2)(3)(4)
% % % %
49 41 5 5

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

The newest CNN/Gallup Polls shows something different from what you quote. Here's the web page reference:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/focus/sr030701.asp

It shows 60% for Bush, 37% for Dean.

The web page also shows trends and you can see that the trends change radically month to month. There's a long way to go in this race and it ain't over till it's over. Any of the candidates may put his foot in his mouth and the race will change radically again.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

But, the poll results are a tangent from the point of this thread. Is the democratic party imploding? It sure looks bad now with the divisiveness between groups within the party. However, it's hard to tell who's going to win in a marathon race from the first few miles. We'll know better in March or April. If the candidate who wins the democratic primaries is able to unify the party, the democratic party might reinvent itself in a practical way. If it remains divisive.....well....can you say "Walter Mondale"?

 

[Wrong Element]

LTGR, the poll I quoted was taken December 30-January 1. Here's the link.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to poll over a holiday. But the 60-37 poll was taken right after the capture of Saddam and has to be seen in that light. I do agree that there are likely to be a lot of ups and downs between now and November.

I don't think being divided is terribly unusual for the "out" party at this stage of the campaign. If you want to see high-level handwringing over Democratic prospects, go check out some stories from the spring of 1992, when Clinton was running third behind Perot and Bush.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

It doesn't look like any of the choices for the democrats are very good. We'll see how things develop. It is certainly premature to discuss the end of the democratic party, we heard the same things after Mondale, Dukakis and a host of others.

 

[JazzManJim]

This also leads to a subtle manipulation that feeds the misconceptions. I'm sure both sides do it, but I'm a long time Fox viewer, I like to have my thinking challenged, and their's is quite obvious.

When conducting and reporting on polls from their website, Fox will then claim what Americans think, when it's safe to say that people who vote on Fox News website polls are more likely to be their just viewers. If they would at least put some disclaimer or change their identifying terms, I think it would give them a measure of credibility.

You've not watched Fox very much, then.

when Fox announces a poll, it is very clear to note whether it is an unscientific poll form their website or it's a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. The latter is as scientific as Gallup or Zogby or ABC/Post polls.

 

[ruminator]

You've not watched Fox very much, then.

when Fox announces a poll, it is very clear to note whether it is an unscientific poll form their website or it's a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. The latter is as scientific as Gallup or Zogby or ABC/Post polls.

I've watched Fox News since they came to our area in the late 90's. I seek other sources too, but manage at least a few hours of Fox during each day.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

You're full of shit.

You squeal Liberal rhetoric, then post a link from a Libertarian website. You said Bush increased corporate welfare, remember?

Hey Einstein, if he posted a link from a Libertarian website he effectively used your own cause's words to hang you.

The Democrats not only have a chance to get the White House, but if they lose that, they can also get Congress.

The sitting President's party typically loses seats in Congressional elections. What happened to Clinton in 1994 can easily happen in 2004 or 2006.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I think one of the consequences of the splintering of the media environment (thinking here of talk radio and websites that cater to particular points of view) is that people tend to surround themselves only with like-minded folk, and as a result are always shocked to find out that millions and millions of Americans don't agree with them. If you watch Fox News and listen to Rush and post on Free Republic, the idea that anyone out there dislikes Bush would seem unthinkable.

And that - the studying of the opposition - is why I decided to stay here.