Angry Dems

[deathbyhokie]

not to sgtart a debate, but for some laughs at how stupid ppl are
http://angrydems.com/

my favorite

BUT HARDLY ANYONE VOTED FOR THEM! There was only 40% turn out of registered voters. Because of all the independent candidates, significantly less than half of the people who voted, voted Republican. So less than 20% of registered voters voted for the Repugs. That's definitely not a mandate. If the Dems actually stood for the people, then think how many votes they'd pick up from those 60% who didn't vote! [3:47am]


automatically assumes that the 60% who were too apathetic to vote would have voted dem. wow. weel we all know whar assumtions do

[3-Headed Monkey]

It always amazes me how Dems react to failures...

[Tygore]

Originally posted by 3-Headed Monkey
It always amazes me how Dems react to failures...

I think they have 2 responses to adjust to the current situation:

1. Blame Republicans for being in power
2. Blame Republicans for not taking control


Whoever chose the jackass as the party symbol was a prophet. Or maybe he had his head up a... never mind. :D

[3-Headed Monkey]

Originally posted by Tygore
I think they have 2 responses to adjust to the current situation:

1. Blame Republicans for being in power
2. Blame Republicans for not taking control


Whoever chose the jackass as the party symbol was a prophet. Or maybe he had his head up a... never mind. :D

lol

[Ich]

The Democrats were founded by Andrew Jackson (on the 20$ Bill). The donkey came from Andrew Jackson's enemies, who called him a Jackass. He adopted it for the party symbol.

[Starkist]

The Democrats were founded by Thomas Jefferson as an anti-Federalist party. The Donkey / Elephant symbols were created in the 1880's by political cartoonist Thomas Nast.

[AlphaDawg]

Speaking of angry Democrats, Paul Krugman of the Newspaper of Record (a.k.a. The New York Times) is about as angry as they come.

In case you missed the opening segment of The O'Reilly Factor last night, here is the column from yesterday's Times that Bill was discussing. In the sentence I boldfaced, Krugman all but admits the media's liberal bias, even if that wasn't his intention. Apparently talk radio and Fox News is to be shamed for giving "the hard right" as he puts it a voice. Then if that wasn't enough he calls the liberal bias a myth and suggests there is in fact a conservative bias in the media!
For those of us who think the nation has taken a disastrous wrong turn these past two years, Tuesday's election changed everything and nothing.

Clearly, we're going to have an extended sojourn in the political wilderness. Even criticizing the Bush administration's policies will become far more difficult. It will be hard even to find out what it's up to; the most secretive administration in the nation's history will now be even less forthcoming. And anyone who criticizes the administration, even on purely domestic issues, will be accused of lacking patriotism. After all, that strategy worked even against Senator Max Cleland, a genuine war hero who lost three limbs in his country's service.

What hasn't changed is the fundamental wrongness of this administration's direction. Too many pundits, confusing politics with policy — or engaging in sheer power worship — imagine that a party that wins a battle must be doing something right. But it ain't necessarily so. Political victory doesn't make a bad policy good; it doesn't make a lie the truth.

But what do we do about it?

Some of my friends are in despair. They fear that by the time the political pendulum swings, the damage will be irreparable. A ballooning federal debt, they say, will have made it impossible to deal with the needs of an aging population. Years of unchecked crony capitalism will have destroyed faith in our financial markets. Unilateralist foreign policy will have left us without real allies. And most important of all, environmental neglect will have gone past the point of no return.

They may be right. But we have to behave as if they aren't, and try to turn American politics around.

It won't be easy. There are essentially no moderates left in the Republican Party, so change will have to come from the Democrats. And they are deep in a hole.

It's not just Sept. 11. As Jonathan Chait points out in The New Republic, the Republicans also have a huge structural advantage. They can spend far more money getting their message out; when it comes to free publicity, some of the major broadcast media are simply biased in favor of the Republicans, while the rest tend to blur differences between the parties.

But that's the way it is. Democrats should complain as loudly about the real conservative bias of the media as the Republicans complain about its entirely mythical liberal bias; that will help them get their substantive message across. But first they have to have a message.

Since the 2000 election, and especially since Sept. 11, much of the Democratic leadership has argued that the party must play it safe — don't criticize the Bush administration too much, don't propose anything drastic that will offend corporations and the wealthy. What we should have realized, and what Tuesday's election disaster confirms, is that this plays right into Republican advantages. Talk radio and Fox News let the hard right get its message out to its supporters, while those who oppose the juggernaut stay home because they don't get the sense that the Democrats offer a real alternative.

To have a chance of breaking through the wall of media blur and distraction, the Democrats have to get the public's attention — which means they have to stand for something.

It's obvious what the Democrats should stand for: Above all, they should be the defenders of ordinary Americans against the power of our burgeoning plutocracy. That means hammering the Republicans as they back off on corporate reform — which they will. It means defending the environment against the administration's sly, behind-the-scenes program of dismantling regulation.

And it means doing what the party has refused to do: coming out forthrightly against tax cuts for corporations and the rich — both the cuts passed last year and those yet to come. In the next few months the Bush administration will once again demand tax cuts that benefit a tiny elite, in the name of economic stimulus. The Democrats mustn't fall for this line again; they must insist that the way to stimulate the economy is to put money in the hands of people who need it.

If the Democratic Party takes a clear stand for the middle class and against the plutocracy, it may still lose. But if it doesn't stand for anything, it — and the country — will surely lose.

[El Oso Verde]

Dude, right wing is conservative. You read it wrong. He's saying in both of those highlighted statements that there is a conservative bias and that the people who favor the liberal side are being hard pressed to hear what they want to hear... I suppose.

It's hard to interpret exactly what someone meant by something like that, but just know that right wing is conservative, not liberal.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him, I'm just pointing that out for you.

[fatcatfan]

No, I think he interpreted it correctly.

Paul Krugman is calling Fox News combined with Talk Radio a "media juggernaut". And implying that no one got to hear the Democrat side of things because these two media outlets have a conservative bias, which they probably do. Where Krugman errs is in the assumption/implication that these two solitary media outlets are the only media outlets available to people. Never mind ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Headline News, practically every newspaper in print....all of which have a liberal bias.

"But if it doesn't stand for anything, it — and the country — will surely lose."

Which is exactly why they lost this election, in general. They didn't take a stand on anything.

[AlphaDawg]

Talk radio is ruled by conservatives, no doubt about it. But that's okay because virtually all of talk radio is news analysis, not reporting.

I don't see Fox News as conservatively biased at all. Fox News only seems conservatively biased when compared to virtually every other news outlet.

[fatcatfan]

Yeah, but in the eyes of the rest of the media, that makes Fox News conservative. :wink: