They're just showing their usual ability to cleary focus on their real problems.

CNN did one good thing on December 9, and showed the Republican´s computer ad sent to millions of Bush supporters. With Howard Dean acting like the leader of the Democrats, he thinks he sets policy and has vision for the leftwingers. The truth is that everything Dean whines about will only become more ammunition to how pathetic the Democrats under his wing. Even Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs mentioned how the Democrats are at war inside their own party, I would call it implodding. The leftwing-antiwar side with Pelosi and Kucin-itch are linked to Howar Dean. President Bush is correct to mention Senator Joe Lieberman as often as he can in speeches to remind the Democrats that until they understand voters will not support a pacifist or a weak president candidate, their party will continue to lose. Even Al Gore has become a shell of his own empty suit on the war issue, and he think screaming is the way to show passion. All it shows is anger and another reason our nation should count its blessings that Gore lost in 2000. Yes, GORE LOST. The election turmoil was headed to the House of Representatives, as happened to settle the dispute for Jefferson, and Rutherford B Hayes in 1876. With a clear Republican majority in the House elected in 2000, Bush was going to be our president. The Democrats are so full of anger they can not organized and unite, so let them wallow in their own confused and bitter debate. Maybe Howard Dean will get dumped in 2006 if the party wakes up to see him as hindering the party, not helping to build the party.

In today's Washington Post, an un-named Democratic leader is quoted as saying that Lieberman is out for himself rather than for the Party. The idea of a person being out for the *country* doesn't seem to even exist in their mental world.

Actually, Darleen, I have a contrarian view. yOU see, i am really old, and i remember when the two main political parties were not ideologically aligned, as they tend to be today. This meant that all ideeologies were represented in both parties.

If your district was conservative, for instance, you would get a choice between a Republican and a Democratic conservative. There would be some minor differences in presidential years according to platform, but mostly you would vote the man, or, more likely, the district would go the way it traditionally did.

Within the dealings of the backroom, politicians were much freer to stake out their own position. The party was much more of a fund-raising club which set uyp linkages to aid each others' elections, with the understanding that on at least the routine votes in Congress, party loyalty would count for something.

When i was young, I disliked this system as too political and not pure enough. The smoke-filled room and all. But now I see the defastation wrought by aligning the major parties with ideologies. It means that those outside the ideology are increasingly less welcome in the party, and the party is less open to new and/or different ideas.

Not only does a moderate liberal like Lieberman get spanked by this, but so does a moderate conservative like Spector.

We have also lost the old method for the adoption of extreme ideas, whereby they used to be adopted from one of the outlying minor parties by some fringe memnbers of the main parties. This was a safe way for America to slowly adopt ideas. Often they would be adopted at the state level first. the radical and predicted-to-be calamatous notion of females voting was adopted this way.

What i fiond sad is that we have lost the "let every voice sing out" notion of Democracy, rather to have two monolitihic parties attempt to speak as one voice each, stifling any other voices which might have some nuance.

It makes one olong for the old parties, fuoll of cigar smoke, but each full of a bubbling diversity.

Undercutting their party's efforts to wrest control of Congress from the GOP next fall.

Am I missing something? I don't see them having a prayer. In fact, the way things are going, it could be 2002 redux, where they buck every trend & lose seats. All they have to run on are hating Bush & higher taxes.

I don't agree the 2 parties are ideologically aligned. The Republican base is finally demanding spending & tax cuts from a spendthrift administration. The Democrats will always vote against tax & spending cuts on principle, because they see govt workers & people dependent on govt programs as their constituency. This is the only reason that oppose Social Security privatization.

i remember when the two main political parties were not ideologically aligned, as they tend to be today. This meant that all ideeologies were represented in both parties.

Well, I'm not "really old," but the fact is that ideology was the reason the party system first began to develop in this country back in the 1790s, and at every point in history where serious (glances around, sees no cuss jar) stuff was happening, the extant political parties of the day were in fact divided ideologically on how to deal with those issues.

Slavery? Reform? The League of Nations? The Great Depression?

If the only view one has of the major political parties is the local congressional campaign, particularly as they were fought prior to 1994 (and mostly since), it's easy to conclude there's not a dime's worth of difference.

But I wouldn't give a dime for the opinions of people who are so little informed.

The Republican party stood for civil rights to end the ownership of people by another group of people. Abraham Lincoln was able to pass the 13rd Amendment outlawing slavery and the 14th Amendment in 1866, as well as the 15th guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. That is standing up for something. Susan B Anthony also believed the Republican party provided the best path for women winning the right to vote nationwide. In fact, the first woman elected to Congress was a Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916 from Montana. McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt have a longer history of support for women as full citizenship than Democrats as well. Warren G Harding was not the first person on the minds of Republicans to become the next president, it was his wife Francis in 1920. She helped create the League of Women Voters in Washington DC, and helped her husband with policy in the Senate. Imagine what our nation stood for in the 1920 election? With all female citizens of voting age winning the right in 1920 to vote in the upcoming election in November,, she refused to be considered and passed her support to her husband. Again, by efforts of Republcians standing up for the rights of women, that was something to stand for as well. And today, the best political party which welcomes me at the table is the Republicans. Even President Ford told reporters that he believed the first woman president would be a Republican. He prediction has more of a chance at coming true in 2008 than at any other time in our nation´s history. FDR and Truman stood for defending our nation from enemy forces, and that is why the Democrats today are seen as WIMPS and PACIFISTS. Kerry, Howard Dean, Pelosi and Barbara Boxer do not show strength or power, only complaining and only naysaying. The political parties of today are not monolithic, they have stand for different issues. Only the non-political would ever link the GOP with the Dems, ever ever ever. That is my two cents for today.

It's an interesting question: when are we going to be pragmatic enough to align with others and try to get things done? When is it pivotal to stand up for a principle? Which issues are so important, they cannot be compromised upon?

That's why I don't use the word "Rino." First of all, given my socially "liberal" perspective, I can be accused of being one myself. Secondly, it's not useful: each individual gets to decide what is so important to him/her that he/she is willing to break with the party on that particular point.

For instance, I don't assume that John McCain has no principles when it comes to gun control. I merely think he's a northeastern guy in a southwestern state, and honestly doesn't understand how important the second amendment is. (Pardon my stereotyping: I mean "northeastern" like Massachusetts, rather than Vermont). But when it comes to first amendment issues, I really expect any American--especially one with an "R" after his name--to understand how paramount they are. Hence, my assertion that McCain is a constitution-shredder, and my sympathy to the viewpoint that he's hooked on MSM attention and needs to go into detox.

In Lieberman's case, he thinks there's something to be said for the idea that a muscular defense will help to keep us safe in a dangerous world. Not a shocking idea, and certainly one any JFK Democrat should comprehend.

Of course, I have an easier time trusting Lieberman's ethical foundation vs. Hillary's, so I'm more likely to see his "centrism" as a case of standing up for principle vs. putting on a veneer in order to run for President in 08.

beautiful atrocities: "I don't agree the 2 parties are ideologically aligned."

Really? let me goive you some facts that support the notion:

The Republican base is finally demanding spending & tax cuts from a spendthrift administration. The Democrats will always vote against tax & spending cuts on principle, because they see govt workers & people dependent on govt programs as their constituency. This is the only reason that oppose Social Security privatization.

Add to this that it is nearly impossible for a "pro-choice" candidate to get the presidential Republican nod, nor for a "pro-life" candidate to get the Democraitc presidential nod.

That's what we meand by ideologically aligned.

The present primary system skews both party's candidates toward the ideological base.

Of course you allude to the fact that the current president was elected by a socially conservative base, but is continuing the liberalism of proior presidents. And the ideological base has revolted.

Take Harriet Miers.

McGehee: "Well, I'm not "really old," but the fact is that ideology was the reason the party system first began to develop in this country back in the 1790s, and at every point in history where serious (glances around, sees no cuss jar) stuff was happening, the extant political parties of the day were in fact divided ideologically on how to deal with those issues.

Slavery? Reform? The League of Nations? The Great Depression?"

It is true that political parties tend to be formed around ideology, and around one that is opposed to those championed by extant parties. But i did not claim to be so old that i would be referring to the 1790s. I'm sorry if you misunderstood that point.

But i am so old that i remember when both parties had liberals, moderates, and conservatives. The Republicans, for instance, had Nelson Rockefellar and Jacob Javits while the Democrats had Strom Thurmond. Here in oregon, the liberal union friendly laws and the extreme environmentalism were pushed by Republicans. (Coors beer could not be sold here for many years because it was non-union. There are no private beaches in Oregon, and all must be available to the public.) Much of this was pushed by Republican governor Tom McCall. He was resonsible for the country's first bottle bill, and a very restrictive land planning law.)

There is a reason that FDR refused to back the anti-lynching legislation proposed by some in congress, and which his wife pushed in a series of speeches across the country.

As for Lincoln, you should realize that he was a great politician. When he was pressed to free the laves, he said that he was in business to save the union, and he would free the slaves only if that wold help save the union, and that he would refuse to do so if that would help save the nation. Remember that his Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to four states in the north which allowed slave holding, such as Delaware.

It is always easy to pick out one or two issues around which national pary platforms differ. This is even necessary to identification of the party. But in history, politicians have been pragmatists. Read sometime, if you will, about LBJ's magnificent effort to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which ultimately hinged on his making promises and twisting arms.

When the 1964 Civil Rights ACt came up for vote, the parties split, as one might expect at that time. Goldwater, who favored the ends of the qct, voted against it because he thought that it eroded states rights. This was a tough decision for a man who had desegreated the Arizona Air national Guard, an act not popular in Arizona.

It was later in the 60s that the parties first started to become more ideologically aligned. that is when many southern Democrats moved to the Republican party in line with Nixon's "southern strategy."

There is no question, young man, thayt nowadays, one can more accurately call the Republicans the conservative party and the Democrats the liberal party than 40 or 50 years ago. You might become better informed about these matters, son.

"If the only view one has of the major political parties is the local congressional campaign, particularly as they were fought prior to 1994 (and mostly since), it's easy to conclude there's not a dime's worth of difference."

Of course, that was not my argument. there have always been differences. And you MIGHT ponder the truth pof the old saw that all politics is local.

My point is that in the old days, the candidates' views tended to reflect those of the voters, NOT some ideology endorsed by the national party. for instance, in 1965 both main parties had al spectrums of people for or against civil rights for Blacks. If you made your voite contingent on your view of this issue, you could not simply rely on the national party platform. Today, on the red-button issues, you are much more likely to be able to do so.

Of course, i must caustion that i am speaking in general terms. There are now, and were then, people and issues which counter the generality. My argument is that the generality that the parties are more ideological now is more true to day then it was 50 years ago.

if you have evidence for the contrary, please bring it. Otherwise you are merely expressing uninformed opinion.

btw, this is not uncommon in the young. on another board a few months ago, a young person (that means under 40) asserted that "the sixties were the heyday of conservatism." He based this on the fact of the Vietnam War. interestingly, my grandfather, who dabbled in conservative politics at the time, and was a Republican, told anyone who would listen that Vietnam was "none of our business," and that that war was another example of the old axiom that the Democrats stood for "taxes, spending, and war."

I would like to note that the 1994 congressional elections were a unique event in our history. One party, the Republicans, listed a number of specific things they would do if elected. they got most tf their party's candidates to sign on to the whole list. And when they were elceted, they actually followed through on the promise! of course, this entrenched the ideology in the party.

This can be contrasted with Wilson running on "he kept yus out of war," FDR crisscrossing the country in support of Democratic candidates in 1938 promising that "so long as I am president, no American boy will die in a war on foreign soil," or, for that matter, a more conservative Bush running for president saying that America "should not be in the nation-building business."

I would say that the social conservatives now hold the Republicans by the scrotum. But i would also note that Bush has been as liberal a president as anyone in modern times, and Congressional Republicans, for the most part, have followed him.

For my money, if you are looking for conservatives in Congress, you will find very few. Anyone for Texas Congressman Ron Paul for president?

I believe even Atailla the Little miss could support him. Rather than those suddenly liberal congressman and senators who supported bush's liberal education program, his medicare addition (when any conservative knows that Midecare is more likely to knock us from the list of powerful nations than China), his "bear any burden, pay any price in defense of liberty" globe-trotting.

You see, the first duty of those in power is to consolidate their power. And due to the liberal governments of the past 70 years, that has come to mean consolidating power in the federal government, and then using it.

Crystal: " Even President Ford told reporters that he believed the first woman president would be a Republican."

Wm. F. Buckley predicted this in 1965. Unfortunately, he thought it would happen by 2000.

"FDR and Truman stood for defending our nation from enemy forces, and that is why the Democrats today are seen as WIMPS and PACIFISTS."

Traditionally, , before FDR, defense meant defense, and was rallied in response to some perceived threat. The classic liberals (not to be confused with FDR liberals) who founded the c ountry were mainly isolationists, ;ike their descendents, the Libertarians, who had to take a new name when FDR stole the 'loberal' tag. Conservatives tended to be isolationists except 3hen business was concerned. one thinks of Commodore Perry steaming into Japan in 1854, not to take the country, not to take land, not to subjugate the people, not to expand an empire, but to open the markets of japan to American trade. this is a conservative act. Remember, conservatives could say, at one time, in good conscious, "what's good for GM is good for America."

(FDR) liberals have always thought that the roile of government was to do good, here and abroad. But the Vietnam war made many of them reconsider military force as an option for doing this.

btw, during WWII, the opposition to the war and naysaying came from Republicans. there are certain duties of a party out of power. But it has usually been true in the past that such opposition "ends at the border."

You see, the question with the present military action is that whether it was defensive is in question. That usually gets lost in the name-calling.

Attila: "In Lieberman's case, he thinks there's something to be said for the idea that a muscular defense will help to keep us safe in a dangerous world. Not a shocking idea, and certainly one any JFK Democrat should comprehend."

The simple history is that when the "wimp liberals" took over the Democratic party (the wimp liberals being those who wanted to categorically reyule out the use of military might to do good in the world), the JFK-FDR-LBJ-HHH-Scoop Jackson liberals drifted out of the party. They have long since (we are in the second generation) joined the Republican party, and now call themselves "neocons." The "paleocons" are much closer to the old fashioned conservatives who used to inhabit both parties.

"I merely think [McCain's] a northeastern guy in a southwestern state, and honestly doesn't understand how important the second amendment is." You should write separately on this subject. Preview: I have never met an argument for the unrestricted use of firearmns based on the second amendment that didn't apply equally well to all weapons. I'm partial to WWII-era flamethrowers, myself.

"Of course, I have an easier time trusting Lieberman's ethical foundation vs. Hillary's, so I'm more likely to see his "centrism" as a case of standing up for principle vs. putting on a veneer in order to run for President in 08."

Y9ou see, back when i was young, no one would think that any politician would "stand on principle." it was understood that those with principles would not last in p0litics, that compromise was necessary to be effective.

WE tried to vote in those we thought would be most likely tpo push the programs we the voiters wanted. We thopught those who ran on principles suspoect, unlikely to do as the voter wanted in crunch time.

yamknrfkdwrurebhuomfljgjbzodaeyldfttgifvm
link http://uywwph.jhdrxgo.com