Why do Democrats take so many chances?

[sluggish]

Let me start by saying that I am neither a racist nor a sexist, but being a realist I have to admit that there are quite a few of both of those left in the US.  The Democrats give us a choice between a socialist lesbian (that's how the right-wing spin doctors will portray her) and a black man with loose Muslim ties.  It seems they have been given a free pass to the White House and are trying everything in their power to screw it up.

[eagl]

What part of social liberalism has anything to do with logic?  The democrat platform is based largely on emotional arguments and opposition to what the "other side" is doing.  Radical democrats and radical republicans are running the same ticket, namely making others do what they "feel" is right, based on their emotions and faith.

The trick is, nobody gets motivated by common sense and moderation anymore so political candidates must either be FOR some extreme set of values, or AGAINST whatever it is their opponent stands FOR.  As the republican fringes tend to try to claim some sort of moral high ground based on religion, it's quite natural for their democrat opponents to swing full-scale the opposite direction.  Republican radicals want to ban gay marriage?  Then a gay candidate is the obvious democrat choice because if the democrat was FOR something, then the republicans would use their moral pretense as a way of justifying being AGAINST whatever it was the democrat was FOR.

I'd like to see a candidate that actually had a plan.  Reagan had a plan...  That was cool, and he changed the world.  Even Bill Clinton had a plan.  The problem with Bill Clinton's plan was that it changed based on the daily polls, so it wasn't really his plan and he had a tough time following through with anything because he kept abandoning his causes whenever he sensed resistance.

Right now, it's cool to be against whatever it the President does so a political candidate can gain an immediate boost in popularity by being the opposite of the President.  That will only go so far, and eventually the candidate will have to either come out FOR something, or successfully sell the message that their opponent is a terrible person and they are not equally terrible.  That's the trap the democrats seem to have been falling into...  They're great at being against stuff but have had problems coming up with positive themes and positions that aren't based entirely on interfering with everyone's life based on the emotional issues of one small group or another.  

That's why the religious right hasn't taken hold of the country... Their position is pretty much based on the idea that they should be able to tell people what they can or can not do, and that pisses off a lot of people.

[lasersailor184]

That's why the religious right hasn't taken hold of the country... Their position is pretty much based on the idea that they should be able to tell people what they can or can not do, and that pisses off a lot of people.

Any politician believes that they should be able to tell us what they can and can't do.  It's ignorance to think that only some people do it.

[bj229r]

Stupid ultrarightwingChristiannutber gers: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16487654.htm?source=rss

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

Oh wait...she's  NOT a conservative...hmmm

Or mebbe THIS rightwingwebsite...http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/19/85444/6159

Currently there is a diary near the top of the recent diary list that attacks Hillary Clinton for a supposed bigoted comment.  The sources the diarist cites are not credible, to say the least, and are more correctly described as right wing websites.

I will not link to this diary as 1) I expect it to be deleted by diarist soon, and 2) I will not spread such filth any further.  

    * Delaware Dem's diary :: ::
*

But this does raise an opportunity to discuss the First Rule of the Primary Wars.  It is expected that there will be diaries criticial of any and all candidates during this time.   No one can complain about that.  Indeed, your candidate will not be our nominee unless he or she can survive our scruntiny.   But, when writing such diaries critical of a candidate, you may not now or ever use source material that emanates from the right wing or Republicans to support your criticisms or attacks.

If your source is NewsMax, delete the diary.

If your source is Insight, delete the diary.

If your source is Drudge, delete the diary.

If your source is Free Republic, consider suicide.

Daily Kos will not be used as a Right Wing echo chamber, for they already have enough echo chambers of their own.

  -Oh wait..they are leftist....
mebbe this one..http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53857

    



An Arizona lawmaker has introduced a bill to revise the state's statutes on organized crime and fraud by defining "domestic terrorism" in such a way that members of the Minuteman Project or other border-patrol groups could be prosecuted and forced to serve a minimum six-month jail term.


That law was upheld last year by a county judge after defense attorneys questioned its constitutionality. Last month, the same judge who upheld the law also overturned the first jury conviction of an illegal immigrant charged as a conspirator under the law, Associated Press reported.

Now, Sinema is targeting border-security groups like the Minutemen with new legislation that would define anyone not formally affiliated with law enforcement, who patrolled in search of illegal activity while armed, as a domestic terrorist. If it becomes law, the bill would impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence, even if prosecutors recommend probation.

HB 2286 reads:

    Sec. 2. Title 13, chapter 23, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-2320, to read:

    13-2320. Domestic terrorism; classification

        A. An individual or group of individuals commits domestic terrorism if the individual or group of individuals are not affiliated with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity and associate with another individual or group of individuals as an organization, group, corporation or company for the purpose of patrolling to detect alleged illegal activity or to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon.

        B. Any city, town or county that suffers injury arising out of a violation of this section may maintain an action in superior court for the recovery of damages or for an injunction, or both. The court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.

        C. If the court sentences the defendant to a term of probation, the court shall order that as an initial condition of probation the defendant be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of not less than six months. This jail term of incarceration shall not be deferred, deleted or otherwise suspended and shall commence on the date of sentencing. This subsection does not apply to persons who are sentenced to serve a period of incarceration in the state department of corrections.

        D. A violation of this section is a class 5 felony.

Sinema and other Democrat legislators joined the ACLU and the American Friends Service Committee as legal observers during the Minutemen's project on the Arizona-Mexico border in April 2005.

"I've been monitoring the Minutemen for a year now," Sinema told vigilantewatch.org at the time, "and they're just scary."

"Race-based tactics always lead to violence," she insisted. "Remember, the Ku Klux Klan was the first-ever group to patrol the border between the U.S. and Mexico back in the '70s."

As WND reported, a leader of the violent, terror-connected Latin American gang Mara Salvatruchas, Ebner Anivel Rivera-Paz, had reportedly issued orders from federal prison to members of his international criminal organization to teach a lesson to the group of Americans taking border control into their own hands.

The Mara Salvatruchas, founded in Los Angeles, has become one of the most violent and widespread gangs throughout South America, the U.S. and even Canada. Many of its members and leaders have been deported from the U.S., but the group is said to be deeply involved in cross-border arms-running and drug-smuggling operations, according to U.S. law enforcement sources.

Under Sinema's bill, volunteers who still want to assist law enforcement by being eyes and ears along the border will have to do so unarmed.

Sinema was awarded the "Vladimir I Lenin" award from Arizona Federation of Taxpayers in 2005, a tongue-in-cheek honor given to the "most pro-big government legislator." In 2006, she angered many conservatives when, in a magazine interview, she referred to them as "Neanderthals" and said women and moms who stay at home and don't work are dependent on men and "leeching off their husbands."    

...dang, I give up:D

[AWMac]

My bet is Sally has no children of her own.

Mac

[Meatwad]

You taking about billary and obama? Both are morons.

If they have a baby together, will it be another Bush jr?

[Hap]

Originally posted by sluggish
The Democrats give us a choice between a socialist lesbian (that's how the right-wing spin doctors will portray her) and a black man with loose Muslim ties.

There's a Junior Senator from Wisconsin who'd like to know about this Sluggish.

All the Best,

hap

[john9001]

<
Sec. 2. Title 13, chapter 23, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-2320, to read:

13-2320. Domestic terrorism; classification>>

that is sure gona mess up "crime watch" zones and 911 calls.





" honest sheriff, i was just shootn at coyotes"