Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to see some moderate (D's) like they use to have when I could consider voting for them. Guys like Bayh, Miller, Graham etc. that were not part of the lunatic left that now seems to dominate their leadership.
I'd like to see some moderate (D's) like they use to have when I could consider voting for them. Guys like Bayh, Miller, Graham etc. that were not part of the lunatic left that now seems to dominate their leadership.
None of our Leadership are lunitics, the right wing media has tried to paint he entire left that way, but it doesnt woke for anyone who follows history even Politics pre 2008. Reid and Pelosi are not new comers and no one called them that before the Right or Center media started going after them. Heck, President Obama wasnt even considered a liberal senator.
Even Bayh is a moderate, true. Zell Miller however, wouldnt even be considered a moderate by 1990's Democratic Standards, he is a true blue conservative who just happen to call himself a Democrat.
I'd really like to know more about Mark Warner. No guarantee he'd get my vote (or even that I'd vote Dem,) but I want to have a look at his policies and his voting record.
None of our Leadership are lunitics, the right wing media has tried to paint he entire left that way, but it doesnt woke for anyone who follows history even Politics pre 2008. Reid and Pelosi are not new comers and no one called them that before the Right or Center media started going after them. Heck, President Obama wasnt even considered a liberal senator.
Even Bayh is a moderate, true. Zell Miller however, wouldnt even be considered a moderate by 1990's Democratic Standards, he is a true blue conservative who just happen to call himself a Democrat.
The irony of your post is that you essentially say look at history for a guide, yet if you were to do so, you might be surprised at what you find.
Lets take Bill Clinton for example. He did not support homosexuals in their effort to redefine what marriage has been throughout human history, much less this country.
He supported welfare reform.
He supported tax cuts.
Though not a hawk, he supported military intervention.
He was against taxpayer funding for abortions and birth control.
The list goes on.
Lets take a look at Tip O'Neal for example. Compared to Pelosi, he would be considered hard right, even though he was considered left leaning in his day as speaker.
I think what has happened is that you, by your proclivity to see things through a presumably liberal lens, think people like Pelosi & Obama as reasoned moderates, not left wing liberals. Yet the positions they have supported are far left of even what Bill Clinton would support, the last (D) to be president prior to Obama. Someone like O'Neal would think of Pelosi as a moonbat, and although she would be a (D) in his time, she would be laughed at as a possible speaker. Now days she is one of the prominent faces of the (D) party even though she is ultra left wing.
FYI - When you make an absurd comment that Obama was not considered a liberal senator, I don't know who you are trying to fool. He voted present on a lot of things to mask who he really was/is. But anyone who really researched who he was, and what he stood for knew. Heck all you needed to do was just read his own words in his books.
As to Miller, you might be right to say he was a conservative by 1990 standards, but remember, that would be a liberal (D) point of view. Southern (D's) were moderates in many instances, only looked at as right wing by the NE and left coast liberals. This is in part because they supported a strong national defense, were pro family values, were pro religion, etc. In the south that does not make you conservative, it is considered normal for a (D) or an (R). Throughout our countries history, those were staples any politician needed to win statewide election, much less be considered for a viable national ticket.
BTW - You left out Bob Graham who I mentioned. He was moderate, and someone I thought would have made a good president. I just do not see current (D's) that are pragmatic like the ones I mentioned anymore.
To your notion of a right wing media, even the generalization is laughable. The media in this country has always been sympathetic to the left, even when they were barely a blip on the political forefront. It was just that there was little to no voice for criticism of (D) politicians back in those days like there is today with talk radio and FOX.
Also, even though many in the media/press were or leaned left, there was still professional journalists who would report on Democratic misdeeds, though maybe not with the zeal they did with Republicans. However once the pretenses were off, we had Rathergate, where he tried to effect an election. You also have CBS (who's president has his brother as part of the Obama team) who helped cover up the 60 minutes interview with Obama until after the election. These are unconscionable acts committed by one of the big 3 news agencies in our country to affect our nation election of who the president will be.
I think to better educate yourself (if you genuinely feel the way you do vs. just being a homer for your party), read Sharyl Attkissons book, "Stonewalled".
If you are a true patriot and believe in a free press, there are revelations in her book that should make you lose sleep over what our government is doing. I have mixed feelings about Eric Snoden, but he did help to lift the veil of secrecy on how citizens, journalists, and even politicians are being spied upon by this administration. She also points out how doing your job as an investigate journalist (though never easy) has gotten almost impossible to do.
Lets say you want to pigeonhole FOX as right wing, primarily because of their conservative talking heads. They still interview (D's) and allow them to express their point of view on the newscasts and some shows. For example David Axelrod, James Carvelle (sp?), and certainly (D) politicians. I've have even heard several of them say they were always afforded opportunities to express their point of view.
Even if you were to knock FOX as being anti-Obama, you cannot deny that they report on real stories that much of the mainstream media almost refuses to cover. That is until the story gets so big, they do not have a choice. Needless to say, the media/press should be skeptical watchdogs of all administrations, not just those with whom they politically disagree with.
The irony of your post is that you essentially say look at history for a guide, yet if you were to do so, you might be surprised at what you find.
Lets take Bill Clinton for example. He did not support homosexuals in their effort to redefine what marriage has been throughout human history, much less this country.
He supported welfare reform.
He supported tax cuts.
Though not a hawk, he supported military intervention.
He was against taxpayer funding for abortions and birth control.
The list goes on.
Bill Clinton was President when the political environment did not allow him to support gay marriage,but both DADT and DOMA were put in place to stop military code that would ban gay people from serving and a constitutional amendment that would permanently make gay marriage illegal.
To argue that Democrats to day do not support welfare reform is to actually argue that Clinton didnt do enough, not that they actually dont support it in essence.
The same goes for tax cuts, you do realize that there is a point where tax cuts cause the amount of revenue to fall to an unsustainable point right ?The Tax rate that is currently in place is actually lower than that of the Clinton Administration
Everything you posted in the above string isnt about history, it is you simply not understanding the context to which you spoke.
Quote:
Lets take a look at Tip O'Neal for example. Compared to Pelosi, he would be considered hard right, even though he was considered left leaning in his day as speaker.
I dont consider him to be hard right.
Quote:
I think what has happened is that you, by your proclivity to see things through a presumably liberal lens, think people like Pelosi & Obama as reasoned moderates, not left wing liberals. Yet the positions they have supported are far left of even what Bill Clinton would support, the last (D) to be president prior to Obama. Someone like O'Neal would think of Pelosi as a moonbat, and although she would be a (D) in his time, she would be laughed at as a possible speaker. Now days she is one of the prominent faces of the (D) party even though she is ultra left wing.
Again, none of the people you spoke of where ever considered ultra left before 2008, and yet you are calling them so, that doesnt show a liberal lens on history, it shows your own bias towards current Conservative leaning media.
Quote:
FYI - When you make an absurd comment that Obama was not considered a liberal senator, I don't know who you are trying to fool. He voted present on a lot of things to mask who he really was/is. But anyone who really researched who he was, and what he stood for knew. Heck all you needed to do was just read his own words in his books.
Ranking of Liberalism usually do not count Present votes so your argument doesnt work with anyone who actually did research instead of just claiming they did.
barack Obama out of 50 Democratic Senators(including independents), usually ranked in the 40s when it came to liberalism.
Quote:
As to Miller, you might be right to say he was a conservative by 1990 standards, but remember, that would be a liberal (D) point of view. Southern (D's) were moderates in many instances, only looked at as right wing by the NE and left coast liberals. This is in part because they supported a strong national defense, were pro family values, were pro religion, etc. In the south that does not make you conservative, it is considered normal for a (D) or an (R). Throughout our countries history, those were staples any politician needed to win statewide election, much less be considered for a viable national ticket.
BTW - You left out Bob Graham who I mentioned. He was moderate, and someone I thought would have made a good president. I just do not see current (D's) that are pragmatic like the ones I mentioned anymore.
You do realize I live in Alabama right ??? And you disproved your own point, or rather proved mine. It is you who is looking through the ideological point of view believing those you agree with are moderate and everyone else is on the wings. Democrats in the South for the most part, are not moderates, they are indeed conservatives.
but none of the things you named make someone conservative either. You are so biased you believe Liberals arent pro defense, pro family and pro religion.
I saw a saying the other day, " when God hates all the people you hate, you have truly made the lord in your own image".
When You beleive Democrats embody everything you dislike, then you have truly made the opposition to your ideology in the image of your perceived Demons. That is what you have done and continue to do.
Quote:
To your notion of a right wing media, even the generalization is laughable. The media in this country has always been sympathetic to the left, even when they were barely a blip on the political forefront. It was just that there was little to no voice for criticism of (D) politicians back in those days like there is today with talk radio and FOX.
im not arguing the term right wing media in the same context that people like you say "left wing media". Im arguing it in the context of Red State.com, the National Journal, The Daily Caller, The Blaze, and so on.
Magazines, News Channels, and websites that specifically identify as conservative.
Quote:
Also, even though many in the media/press were or leaned left, there was still professional journalists who would report on Democratic misdeeds, though maybe not with the zeal they did with Republicans. However once the pretenses were off, we had Rathergate, where he tried to effect an election. You also have CBS (who's president has his brother as part of the Obama team) who helped cover up the 60 minutes interview with Obama until after the election. These are unconscionable acts committed by one of the big 3 news agencies in our country to affect our nation election of who the president will be.
How exactly was the 60 minutes thing covered up ???? Please back up your statements.
Quote:
I think to better educate yourself (if you genuinely feel the way you do vs. just being a homer for your party), read Sharyl Attkissons book, "Stonewalled".
If you are a true patriot and believe in a free press, there are revelations in her book that should make you lose sleep over what our government is doing. I have mixed feelings about Eric Snoden, but he did help to lift the veil of secrecy on how citizens, journalists, and even politicians are being spied upon by this administration. She also points out how doing your job as an investigate journalist (though never easy) has gotten almost impossible to do.
being a true patriot means you accept that people have different views of the world than you do.
Quote:
Lets say you want to pigeonhole FOX as right wing, primarily because of their conservative talking heads. They still interview (D's) and allow them to express their point of view on the newscasts and some shows. For example David Axelrod, James Carvelle (sp?), and certainly (D) politicians. I've have even heard several of them say they were always afforded opportunities to express their point of view.
Even if you were to knock FOX as being anti-Obama, you cannot deny that they report on real stories that much of the mainstream media almost refuses to cover. That is until the story gets so big, they do not have a choice. Needless to say, the media/press should be skeptical watchdogs of all administrations, not just those with whom they politically disagree with.
`
I can deny that as I have personally never heard of Fox covering a story that was relevant that the rest of the media didnt cover. Of course that is based on my own biased just as your opinion of what is relevant is of yours.
Why not Harry Reid? He's led the party for years anyway, plus you have the added benefit of most of his scandals while Senate Majority leader have already been pushed under the rug.
Well let's just say: age, lack of popularity, lack of being trust worthy for starters. All the scandals would pop right back up...I just don't think the Dems have anyone they can count on and it is not looking great for their star actress either.
wouldn't that be an interesting one to put it mildly!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a Good Democrate?
