It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Democrats need to hear

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:59 AM

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a b---- up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton....I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight....

Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers. Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief. This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks a--....

Molly Ivins lays it down some more here

I need a horse in this race, and the Democrats refuse to give me one to run against John "Stokholm Syndrome" McCain. Third party candidates offer me Libertarians who didn't finish school and talks about being a Boy Scout over Ron Paul, or someone who can't even get a bleep on sites like this, let alone mainstream." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Mod Note: Surround your snippet and link to an external source with these new tags: [ex] --> Begin external source content
[/ex] --> End external source content

[edit on 16-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:31 AM
You have voted Bout Time for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this Month!!!

Very much agreed. This has gone too far to take anything but a completely uncompromising stance. I think this is what we need. Our democracy has been highjacked by people who care even less about the people than most politicians...if thats even possible.

Its I am watching out favorite man otta WI very closely.

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:50 PM
Bout Time, pardon the pun, but it's about time someone called for some action. I am also very tired of watching the Democrats in Washington squeamishly trying to "keep the peace". The time for pandering to the "other side" is over. It's time for the Democrats to fight back!

What the Dems need to do is to forget about the "unpatriotic" business. The "unpatriotic" name-calling is only a tactic to hinder the democratic process. They have to focus on trying to get this country back on track by asking the hard questions and (as I said in my many posts) putting a clear game plan together.

I agree with you about Russ Feingold(D.-Wisc.). Barbara Lee (D.-Ca), Nancy Pelosi (D.-Ca.), John Conyers (D.-Mich.), John Murtha (D.-Penn) and Feingold have high marks in my book because they fought for what they believed in even when others in the party derided their efforts. Also, I give my props to Michigan Senator Debbie Stabinow for her speech in the Senate yesterday (Man, I loved the sign!). These people are true patriots because they speak with their mind and use their conscience when considering the needs of the country and their people.

As for a candidate? Like I've said before, I'm keeping my eyes open. But I ask of all other Dems out there, don't fall into the "Chris Matthews' trap" of supporting Hillary. Sen. Clinton (D.-NY) should continue a bit more in her Senate seat and try to build her record.

Edit: What I mean by the "Chris Matthews' trap" is that on his show, he keeps on saying, "When Hillary runs..." or "When Hillary becomes the 2008 candidate...". After he completes the sentence, you can see the glint in his eyes that he is waiting to put her down with negative comments. He solely wants Clinton to run so he can whet his appetite for disparaging her on camera like other Right Wing pundits.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by ceci2006]

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:46 PM
I have lost my faith on any political party that is linked to the elite that holds the power in this country.

Our political systems is nothing than an illusion to keep us happy and under the impression that we still have choices and can make a difference.

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:20 AM
Baby steps Marg, baby steps...

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 02:57 PM

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Baby steps Marg, baby steps...

I really believe that as long as our country is hijacked by the elite we have not change to made decisions or to make our desires stand.

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:18 PM
Marg, I believe that too. That's why it is okay to "stand outside the process" and review your political position. I am not a big believer in forcing others to join groups, religions or parties. I know that I can be only responsible for my own choices for what I believe in--political wise. Everyone is free to have their own opinion. It is their own private decision (I'm also glad that my parents believed in this notion and instilled it in me.).

So, if you feel that the "elites" are taking over Washington, then so be it. The elites are there. And I would also agree that they don't listen to the common people any more. Something has to be done to find people who are willing to serve in the best interest of all Americans, not the corporations.

So, it is time to reevaluate your choices and issues, and take time to pick someone that will do the best good for the country in your mind.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:59 AM
Where do we sign up for the revolution then Marg? You can be our fearless leader if I get to paint up your face ala-Braveheart. You can even give that moving speech.

"You can take our lives, but you can never take our freedom!!!!"

So long as it is you who gets disemboweled at the end rather than me...I'm in.

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:33 PM

had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a b---- up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton....

It doesn't make sense that this person is calling for people to rally around the party, but then rejecting the person that is almost certainly going to be the party's candidate for presiednt in 2008.

This person is, in effect, weakening the democratic party. If the democrats want to be in power, they have to learn from the republicans, support the party, in large numbers, regardless of who is being fronted as candidate. :shrugs: Thats what party politics is about anyways.

But the democratic voters and the democratic politicians aren't going to do that, apparently. Looks like they are going to split themselves into factions, again.
Hell, the democrats couldn't unite against Bush, and he's a figurehead that people hate.
If the party couldn't do that, how is it going to defeat the republicans in 2008 when its someone who doesn't carry the 'bush baggage' that is their candidate????

On the other hand, people could just drop the party politics, and vote for someone that they think is going to do the best job, given the situation. That seems to be a strong element in the republican powerbase, that the public saw national security as being imperative, any simply voted for the candidate that was seen as strongest on that, regardless of party.

Now the question is, how many 'democrats' can read all that and respond with something other than complaints or tales about how stupid bush is??? Very few probably, and thus is revealed yet another reason why the democratic party can't win, won't win, and will continue to remain the minority/opposition party. :shrugs:

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:37 PM
Moving a bit more to the center wouldn't hurt their cause any. Speaking as a conservitive democrat, I have grown sick and tired of Kennedys, Gores, not to mention John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry. Sorry to say it but Hillary aint all that either.

I yearn for the days of my youth, not THAT long ago, when there were dems who were strong on defense and foreign policy: Henry Jackson, Sam Nunn, just to name two.

Joe Lieberman is the closest I have seen to being of a concervative bent, but he has no chance of being the democratic standard bearer. Personally, I think he'd do better than a lot of liberal democrats think.

A move to the center would work wonders.

Just a quick quesstion: When did Chris Matthews become a right wing pundit? Did the poles shift or something?

[edit on 20-3-2006 by seagull]

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:29 PM

Originally quoted by seagull
Just a quick quesstion: When did Chris Matthews become a right wing pundit? Did the poles shift or something?

Okay, maybe I was exaggerating a bit when I said that Chris Matthews mirrored a "Right Wing" pundit. And at first, I did like Chris Matthews a long time ago because I thought he was fair. But, then as I increasingly watched his show, he began this transition into being more conservative than I ever thought.

Not to get off topic in such an important post, but here's a few sources to check out Matthews and see whether he's worthy of being named a "Right Wing pundit":

Chris Matthews, Wikipedia

Media just named Mr. Matthews as an "conservative's conservative" along with other hosts on NBC:

NBC's Today, like MSNBC's Hardball, hosted more conservatives than liberals

Here is the reason why I think that the "Chris Matthew's Effect" is in full force. On Media, Matthews calls Hillary a "fickle woman". This is one of his many acts on the "Get Hillary" campaign:

Matthews asked: Is Hillary Clinton unable to "admit a mistake" on Iraq vote because she would be criticized as a "fickle woman"?

So, imho, the poles did shift. Chris Matthews is on his way to demogoguery. But even with all this, I still am a little leery about Sen. Clinton being the front runner of the Dems in 2008.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by ceci2006]

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:46 AM
Huh! Apparently they did shift while I was sleeping or something. I wonder what happened to change his mind? He always seemed to be a big fan of Bill, why not Hillary? Because she's a woman?

Wow, that certainly caught my attention, but then I don't watch much in the way of CNN or FOX anymore, or the bigThree networks. I may have to start watching them occaisionally.

new topics

top topics


log in