Democratic (Party) Direction

1. The sort-of "this is why the Dems are getting crushed" argument relies on a false premise, as the country is very closely divided, and by most accounts, Dems actually won the last two presidential elections. Not only that, but the talking point I keep hearing from both sides is that the dmes would completely take ove congress this fall if it weren't for all the crazy gerrymandering of the last ten years.

2. I think the alternative energy talking point is a HUGE winner. There are so many technologies out there that are getting very close to providing us with energy independence that it's not just a rhetorical argument anymore. I think the best way to phrase it would be:

"We have spent just about $400 billion in Iraq in the last four years. Ask anyone involved in energy research what they could come up with if they had $400 billion. They'd tell you you'd be driving a car right now that ran on shit and landfill."

I don't know, but where I live (NJ) it seems like local governments are rife with problems of their own: corruption, patronage, machine politics, pay-to-play, cozy backroom deals, lack of transparency, lack of an effective media watchdog, lack of voter attention. I think there's something to be said for having all the clowns in one place so that we can keep an eye on them.

It's not realistic to expect that there will be an effective media watchdog presence in every county and town in the country, making sure that officials don't abuse the perquisites of their office. I often feel like I know more about what's going on in Washington than about whats happening in my own city hall.

What do we learn from that lesson?

okay, good, a concrete example. let's go with this.

two things:

1) fuck yeah, i completely agree, earmarks are fucked and example of what should be prohibited or at least greatly codified as to not be so abused

2.) specific examples are far better to talk about than just the empty monikers. so in this case, wasteful expenditure = BAD govt, right. no argument there.

i'm not trying to be antagonistic towards you(i try to hold that for two other posters and that new guy who's an asshole on ILG and dissed Fallout). I'm trying to get at why folks on here or elsewhere use nebulous language when talking about this kinda thing, that there's a difference between "big" government and "bad" government. it's a difference between realizing that government is a tool.

resonating on a local level than on a national level, and that many people feel the same way.

thing is, part of this is what i'm going on about, that we're currently living at the end result of a cycle where most of what wasn't immediate was ignored and left for others to do.

- from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07tues1.html

i'm not saying that we will, i'm saying that our culture is fucked because they don't and we don't.

civic life has been fucked in this country since the war ended and the automobile became the dominant part of how we started building housing.

i'm saying that humans beings(or rather, people in groups, not nec. individual humans) are fucking stupid and have to be fucked over before they learn a goddamn thing, only to forget it a generation or two later.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/ep3605-kuni.jpg

"...People who live in glass dude ranches should not question the patriotism of real soldiers who fought and bled for this country on a real battlefield.�

Incidentally, (apropos of nothing and not really related to this thread) did anyone see the report that one of the aggro recruiters in Fahrenheit
9/11 was uh, just killed by a bomb in Iraq?

it'd be nice if the Democratic Party could get a little ahead of the curve here (Lamont upset notwithstanding)

I would think that its not being clear what opposition means, even to a well-informed party pol like yrself, is a problem for the Democrats. They should be staking out oppositional territory now, to get the jump on the Republicans - frame the issue before the right does.

wait, what? are you talking about this vote? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13477664/. 39 Democrats opposed a counter-proposal for troop withdrawal with no date specified, but only 13 voted for Kerry's proposal of a complete withdrawwal by July 1, 2007. The previous proposal for a complete withdrawal by 12/31/06 was the one only 6 senators voted for.

"Senate Rejects Dems' Pullout Plan

By a decisive 86-13 vote, the U.S. Senate today rejected John Kerry's proposal for a complete withdrawal from Iraq by July 1 of next year--a completely arbitrary date that replaced the equally arbitrary date in Kerry's last proposal, December 31, 2006.

More Democrats supported the leadership's odd alternative, which called for troop withdrawals to begin but specified no end date. Since the administration is already reducing troop levels and will continue to do so, it isn't clear how, exactly, this measure would represent a change in policy. The Senate rejected it in a 60-39 vote. Lincoln Chafee voted with the Democrats, and six Democrats--Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and Mark Dayton--voted with the Republicans."

perhaps you can refer back to my actual words which clearly do not say that 39 senators voted for a complete withdrawal by 12/31/06

b-b-but this is not true! The 39 voted to withdraw troops with no timetable...

its weird that you won't admit you're wrong here. it's okay, it's not that big a deal.