Sycamore's Amazing Conclusion #4
 

When the campaign talk starts heating up later this year, the Democratic Party will champion itself as the party for individual freedoms, snatching it away from Republicans. Discuss.

I think they'll stay as close to the middle as possible. Yep, I'm cynical.

Thats why Al Sharpton is gonna take that bunch of pansies out to the woodshed and lay some lumber on 'em.

Wow. What are the Vegas odds on him pulling in even a single primary, and can I get some action on the "against" side?
-sm

You may send your money here to place your bet.

Every vote for al sharpton in a democratic primary is a step closer to another 4 years of republican presidency.

I can't get with the Greens...too anti-business. I like money, and want to make lots of it. I can't have Ralphie fucking that plan up for me.

I like Al...I'm so proud of his settling-down, but he's still not ready for the White House. (Although, I don't know...if Dubya can be president, there's hope for anyone, right?)

I don't care for any of the Dem candidates. My God, what an embarrassment, with the exceptions of maybe Kerry and Edwards.

I want to see McCain make that indy run. I know he doesn't want to upset the GOP, but that would be a neat thing to see.

So unless Hillary or Big Ed run, it's settled...I'm voting for Mickey Mouse.

     Not just four more years of Republican presidency, four more years of Bush. C'mon I know that the gun rights are top on a lot of lists around here, but how long will they last, even under the Republicans once all our other rights are gone?
     Sorry... coming off the soap box...
     No wait, not done, the 'Dim'ocrats better do something right, they've really sucked of late. Al Sharpton certainly ain't gonna get it. They need to head for the middle all right, not just lip service either. They really screwed themselves in the mid-term election running as the "not-Republican party." They simply haven't offered anything.
     This would appear to be fertile times for third party's, but no, and I think we've gone over third parties enough around here that I don't need to go into it.
     Hmm, I better go before I say something that could be considered inflammatory.

     In conclussion: we are screwed.

Well, I'm voting Green again in the next election. Even though that will probably just allow the Republicans to have their say for the next four years, well, I figure it has to get worse before it gets better.

Face it, the Dummycrat faithful will vote for the prettiest boy on the list. They are already irrelevent. No high profile Dem, who is running, has consistently opposed spending at stupid levels, the war on rights, and military interventionism. Those are the things that, I beleive, can beat Bush. I'm gonna keep wasting my vote, hoping for the day the Repugnants are equally irrelevent.

For people that don't find me humorous, no I don't believe Al can win. He is, however, the only interesting personality running for the D nom.

Thanks for the link, griff. I placed my bet, and I got to vote for where Sharp should stand on any issue other than race ...

... guess they're still ironing out the kinks.

-sm

I wonder if he would paint the White House black, like George Clinton.

     I wouldn't count on any changes to the White House. I mean we had an Arkie in there and aluminum siding didn't go up. Maybe the Pres isn't allowed to redecorate the outside?

Of course the Park Service Police were careful to quash that story about Bills cousins showing up with the trailer carriage...

Woohoo! George Clinton for president in 2004!

     I hear that the secret service also refused to allow Bill to build a mud diving pit in the back. Poor guy, that's why he had to take up jogging.

They didn't do a very good job of hiding it. Rho used to see it sitting along Constitution Ave. every morning on her way to work.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this...

I must admit that my original conclusion on this is incorrect. It should be as follows: "When the campaign talk starts heating up later this year, the Democratic Party should champion itself as the party for individual freedoms, snatching it away from Republicans."

The Democratic Party is simply not taking advantage on obvious gaffes in the Bush administration. Of course, they have Terry McAuliffe running the show, which is hurting them. They need a pit bill in there right now...Jesse Jackson, Willie Brown (SF Mayor), or one of the Daly clan (a la the Chicago powerbrokers).

The current administration is attempting to strip individual rights and has already expanded the government. These are big no-no's in the GOP, right? (Not that either big party doesn't go against their normal principles, but individual rights and smaller government have always been the hallmarks of the GOP, from what I've seen.) All under the guise of "We have to do this, or the terrorists will win." Oh, and then there's that issue with the ballooning deficit.

The Dems have had multiple opportunities, IMO, to seize upon this. They should not fear any voter repercussions, for there are plenty of people out there that are against the things that have been done. They wouldn't be unAmerican in doing such a thing, b/c dissent and its results are what America so great at times (e.g. Civil Rights Era). But instead, they will sit there like a bunch of pussies, hem and haw about whether they should run for president, make some toned-down remarks about our economy and against war, then crawl back into their hole.

And if even they do get voted out of office or draw the ire of Americans/constituents, they'll bounce back in the end. THAT'S the American way...if Rob Lowe and Paul Reubens can do it, anyone can.

Heavy agreement!

IMO the Democrats also have to craft a positive message. For quite some time their message has been "the country is broken and we know how to fix it". They need another kind of Reagan's "morning in America" approach. Nothing Reaganesque mind you, but a *positive* message.

Yeah, that would just about finish them off completely...Jackson or Daley in particular.

Why do you say that, Maggie?

Other than his relatively recent indiscretions, Jackson is fairly well-liked these days. He got POWs out of the former Yugoslavia, when our government couldn't. And he possesses the qualities that made Clinton so likable. Jackson isn't the firebrand he was 20+ years ago, which can do nothing but help him...but he still has that fire in his belly. Something the Dems desperately need right now.

The Daley brothers are a kindler, gentler, less corrupt version of their father. Richard has made good strides in Chicago, and Bill was involved in Gore's campaign. Truth be told, they may be two of the most knowledgeable when it comes to playing the game that is politics.

Willie Brown has corruption issues dogging him...and although I applaud his liberal stance, the mere fact that he is the mayor of San Francisco would probably scare most folks sitting on the fence.

There are two others that could take the mantle as well. Both are governors, but known (or becoming better known) by many Americans.

The first being Jennifer Granholm of Michigan. She can't ever become President (b/c she was born in Canada), but is considered a rising star.

The second, of course, is Big Ed, who has already run the DNC...and apparently had no qualms about being candid during the presidential election debacle. The truth probably cost him that post, but that's the kind of reality that the Dems need right now.

Either is a great candidate, really. Both from states that are what I would consider "quintessential America." Both states contain a wide variety of people, economic factors, problems, big cities, and small towns. Everyone loves that whole Americana thing.

And of course, there's always Bill...if he wants it.

The reality of the situation, IMO, is that the Dems are already as low as they're going to get. Worse than after the 1994 elections. The only way I see that they could make it worse for themselves is by letting Ted Kennedy take the mantle.

Sycamore the Soothsayer?