I have a lot more faith in the Democratic party than any time in my life. I was Republican until 92 then went Independent then in 2000, Democratic...
I think the Democrats learned a valued lesson in 94, after controlling congress for 25 years. Since then, the R party has been the victim of its own arrogance.
I truly believe the Democratic party has learned lessons of past failures and feel for the first time in my life that we might see a TRUE Congress that has the BETTERMENT of the PPL in mind...
2007-03-16 17:05:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by BeachBum 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The problem with the democratic party, as it has been over the last almost fourteen years, is that they are still trying to figure out how to be the minority party. I know that it does not make a lot of sense but hear me out. Prior to the November elections the democrats had been in the minority for 12 years, since Newt Gingrich and the GOP took over in 1994, after years of democratic control of the congress. It did not matter in 1994 because the democrats still had control of the White House. So you have the Congress in GOP control and the White House under Democratic control leaving the democratic congressional caucaus left to bicker and infight for control of the party. Clinton did not need the democrats because he was so popular but the democrats clung to the coat tails of the President like a child to a mother. Fast forward to '06. The democrats take control but have no centralized leadership, no ability to control the far left fringe of the party and now all the GOP has to do is wait for the democrats to cannabilize themselves. (I should have mentioned this earlier that I am a registered democrat). The democrats have to come together and unite behind whoever the party leader is going to be. Obviosly Pelosi scares the hell out of the far right and the independents so she can not been seen as the party leader. Clinton, obviously she has name recogniation but if she does not win the nomination then she is done in democratratic politics. Harry Ried, too many skeltons in the closet, leaving that one last star the party has, yup...Senator from Illnois Barack Obama. Even if he does not win the nomination he is future of the party and should be being groomed for the party lead.
2007-03-14 10:19:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Adam W 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with you, but that sentiment is old, and no one pays attention to it. People will continue to vote on party lines, regardless. Sensationalism of the candidates (look! Hillary is a woman! Vote for her, or you're a misogynist!) (look! Obama is black! Vote for him, or you're a racist!) (look! McCain is a veteran! Vote for him, or you don't support the troops!) (look! Guiliani was the mayor during Sept. 11! Vote for him, or you must be a terrorist!) will play a big part in the voting this year.
Everything seems to be fear-based, anyway. I keep thinking that Democrats will be leading the country, but with national security being such a huge issue, can Republicans hold up Bush's record of no attacks since 9/11 as proof that they're tough on terrorism? And if there is another attack, can Republicans hold that up as an example of Democratic leadership in the Congress crippling their ability to defend the country? And if Iraq continues to go badly, which it seems it will, can the Democrats play that to a successful 2008?
I don't mean to be so scatterbrained, but a third party candidate just doesn't stand a chance, no matter what the 5% of the country (statistic source: my ***) that pays attention to politics thinks.
2007-03-14 01:44:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by spewing_originality 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
the problem is both of the major parties keep running candidates that are far out on their parties particular wing. The left for the democrats and the right for the republicans. What we really need is a true centrist candidate that has a real chance of winning.
You must remember that the main purpose of the two parties is to remain in power. This means that they have to work together to maintain the two party system because they both know that with the two party system they will have power in the government and that the power will occasionally be transferred from one party to the next.
Try Unity08 and see what they are about.
2007-03-14 01:47:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by tipp10 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Democrats and Republicans are bickering over US dominance resulting to disunity. Independent candidates or new parties must come out and they have the good chance of winning this time because the Americans are tired of partisan politics.
2007-03-14 01:41:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'll agree the Democrats aren't exactly the best lot we've ever had. But better than the current crop of Republicans? Yes.
Right now we have Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Gonzalez. The Four Bubbas of the Apocolypse.
Hard not to do better than that.
2007-03-14 03:10:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends on your definition of better. I think if the Democrats can stop the carnage and our troops coming home with missing limbs and brain damage, that would be "better." If they can stop the massive drain on our financial resources through military funding and divert that money to domestic issues, that would be "better." The real question here is "if." I'm not so sure they can.
Forget party -- we just need a real leader.
2007-03-14 01:40:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO party could possibly be any worse than the Republican failures of the past 7 years.
Led by the WORST President in US history, the Republicans have marched us into military disaster and financial ruin.
Fortunately, this means the end of the Repubs, who will be tossed into the trash bin of history, where they belong.
2007-03-14 01:48:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by gw_bushisamoron 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
nope.. they will not do any better. look at what has happened over the past 20 years.. people get into power, get in trouble somehow, another group comes in stating they will take over and clean up the congress, and then they do something stupid!!
2007-03-14 03:12:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by aaron b 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. -But now that the govenment is pretty much split, 50/50- at least the News will be alittle more "entertaining". :)
2007-03-14 01:42:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Joseph, II 7
·
0⤊
0⤋