It's Official: The Dems Are Losing

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
**It’s Official: The Dems Are Losing

**It’s Official: The Dems Are Losing
By Doug Patton
August 22, 2005

Despite my ongoing grumbling about GOP inaction on certain key issues important to the future of the Republic, a recent article from The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reminded me once again why I remain a Republican.
I couldn’t help but smile as I read about the latest official report from something called “The Democracy Corps.” According to the Post-Dispatch, the report warns Democratic candidates that their party has “made little progress presenting themselves in a way that would capture rural voters or make inroads into other Republican turf.”
Tapping into a brain trust consisting of such Democrat hotshots as Stan Greenberg, Bob Shrum and James Carville, this organization has managed to do what Democrats always do so well: spend lots of money to produce a study that states the obvious, only to create flawed strategies drawn from inaccurate conclusions. Their brilliant hypothesis this time: Democrats are losing elections. The reason: red state voters are failing to understand the moral values of the Democrat Party.

It is hard to imagine why their agenda is not resonating with the American people. After all, Democrats stand for so many things Americans hold dear, things like: purging all references to God from the public square; coddling violent criminals while banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens; the redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not; capitulation to our terrorist enemies abroad; the surrender of American sovereignty to a corrupt world body (the U.N.); homosexual marriage; abortion on demand right up to the moment of birth; and the seizing of private property for commercial use if it produces more tax revenue for their precious government coffers.

What civic-minded American wouldn’t support a sensible agenda like that?

** Don’t believe me? I offer as Exhibit “A” the national platform of the Democratic Party. It is one of the most socialist documents since Karl Marx wrote, “I have an idea for a manifesto” to his friend Frederick Engels.** In fact, the Democrats’ platform was written by radicals from organizations like MoveOn.org and the nation’s teachers unions, who want nothing to do with traditional American values. These are the people who comprise the “grassroots” of the Democrat Party.

Exhibit “B” is its national chairman, Howard Dean, one of the shrillest liberals in the country. The only two more out-of-the-mainstream people the Dems could have chosen to lead their party are Michael Moore and George Soros. (Unofficially, at least, these two seem to be running the party, anyway.)

more…
 
buffalo said:
It’s Official: The Dems Are Losing

It’s Official: The Dems Are Losing
By Doug Patton
August 22, 2005

Despite my ongoing grumbling about GOP inaction on certain key issues important to the future of the Republic, a recent article from The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reminded me once again why I remain a Republican.
I couldn’t help but smile as I read about the latest official report from something called “The Democracy Corps.” According to the Post-Dispatch, the report warns Democratic candidates that their party has “made little progress presenting themselves in a way that would capture rural voters or make inroads into other Republican turf.”
Tapping into a brain trust consisting of such Democrat hotshots as Stan Greenberg, Bob Shrum and James Carville, this organization has managed to do what Democrats always do so well: spend lots of money to produce a study that states the obvious, only to create flawed strategies drawn from inaccurate conclusions. Their brilliant hypothesis this time: Democrats are losing elections. The reason: red state voters are failing to understand the moral values of the Democrat Party.

It is hard to imagine why their agenda is not resonating with the American people. After all, Democrats stand for so many things Americans hold dear, things like: purging all references to God from the public square; coddling violent criminals while banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens; the redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not; capitulation to our terrorist enemies abroad; the surrender of American sovereignty to a corrupt world body (the U.N.); homosexual marriage; abortion on demand right up to the moment of birth; and the seizing of private property for commercial use if it produces more tax revenue for their precious government coffers.

What civic-minded American wouldn’t support a sensible agenda like that?

** Don’t believe me? I offer as Exhibit “A” the national platform of the Democratic Party. It is one of the most socialist documents since Karl Marx wrote, “I have an idea for a manifesto” to his friend Frederick Engels.** In fact, the Democrats’ platform was written by radicals from organizations like MoveOn.org and the nation’s teachers unions, who want nothing to do with traditional American values. These are the people who comprise the “grassroots” of the Democrat Party.

Exhibit “B” is its national chairman, Howard Dean, one of the shrillest liberals in the country. The only two more out-of-the-mainstream people the Dems could have chosen to lead their party are Michael Moore and George Soros. (Unofficially, at least, these two seem to be running the party, anyway.)

more…
Click to expand...

buffalo:

Thank you for the reminder… A lot of people on this board still don’t want to hear this. I recently had to remind one Catholic in the LA Archdiocese who campaigned for Kerry of the facts about Abortion and the Culture of Death.

She simply wasn’t hearing it in her parish, which was stressing that Catholics had to actively work for Justice and Peace.

One of the things I asked her was how we could bring about Justice while allowing one of the world’s great Injustices, the slaughter of the innocent simply because they haven’t been born yet, to remain enshrined in law.

Please pray for the LA Archdiocese. They’re in real trouble, and sheep are being led astray.

And, NO, I’m NOT celebrating - I’m too busy crying about it.

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones, Michael
 
All it would take is a quarter of those Catholics who voted GOP in 2004 to convince one other Catholic to switch to the GOP and the Democratic Party would be forced * immediately* to abandon the Culture of Death.

I’ll never vote Democrat even if they do reform themselves on life issues but it would be nice to have a two party system where both are moral. I have older relatives and friends who are Democrats. Don’t enjoy looking at them every election and thinking about what their vote supports.
 
The real difference in elections will be seen when photo voter IDs are required. Then certain cities will be more apt to record the true voting tallies.
 
40.png
David_Paul:
All it would take is a quarter of those Catholics who voted GOP in 2004 to convince one other Catholic to switch to the GOP and the Democratic Party would be forced immediately to abandon the Culture of Death.

I’ll never vote Democrat even if they do reform themselves on life issues but it would be nice to have a two party system where both are moral. I have older relatives and friends who are Democrats. Don’t enjoy looking at them every election and thinking about what their vote supports.
Click to expand...
If the Democratic Party becomes moral, we would then have only one moral party. What would it take to force the GOP to abandon its Culture of Death (death penalty, “preventive” war)?
 
Syn kobiety:
. What would it take to force the GOP to abandon its Culture of Death (death penalty, “preventive” war)?
Click to expand...
Good question. As one who is against the death penalty, I and many others have found that abolishment of such can not occur as long as the ACLU-type lawyers and judges are permitted to free predators to threaten the innocents of our sociey.
A life sentence should mean a life sentence but it doesn’t anymore. The results of this have been horrifiying.

Re ‘preventive’ war, doesn’t that mean the prevention of another 9/11 attack on thousands in the US?
 
40.png
Lizzie:
Good question. As one who is against the death penalty, I and many others have found that abolishment of such can not occur as long as the ACLU-type lawyers and judges are permitted to free predators to threaten the innocents of our sociey.
A life sentence should mean a life sentence but it doesn’t anymore. The results of this have been horrifiying.

Re ‘preventive’ war, doesn’t that mean the prevention of another 9/11 attack on thousands in the US?
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war

A preventive war is term given to kind of war whose causes are proclamed as “self-defense.” The concepts of preventive war and preemptive war differ in the only in the certainty of an attack —the latter concerns an imminent attack, while the former requires no military provocation. The rationale for preventive war is the claimed prevention of a possible future attack, which international law considered to be indistinguishable from a forbidden war of aggression.
 
JUST MY TWO CENTS–

How can one sit on the high and mighty chair about being pro-life but then have a problem with the Iraq war? What about the Iraqi people? What about those families who will never know what happened to their loved ones? Were their lives not important?.. I personally never bought the WMD idea. I thought we should have gone in years ago for human rights. We as a world should have stood up for all those Iraqi’s who were killed. We as a nation can not claim that human rights are important and spending millions of dollars in the courts to fight for those rights (sexual harassment etc…) but then turn our backs on those in need of help when their basic human rights are being violated. Either life is precious and worth fighting for OR not.We as a people failed our brothers and sisters of the world by not pushing our leaders or the UN to do enough to stop Sadam. What more proof did we need? We knew that Sadam paid for terrorist who killed Jews…He let terrorist stay in Iraq…He oppressed and murdered those under his power who did not agree with him…Mass graves have been uncovered and the records of torture are too numeral to count… Under our own judicial system he would have been charged with being and a party to murder so to say that he didn’t help in causing us to be attacked is wrong. He may not have run the plane into a building but he did enough of the background work to be considered a ringleader.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top