EXDIA53
06-27-2006, 07:21 AM
Since I'm used to the whack-jobs on DemocracyUnderground.com, I feel the need to display my Democratic Party affiliations: Youth organizer for McGovern, 1972, intelligence community employment under Carter (1977-1980), Democratic voter in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004.
Now, I'm constantly amazed at the laser-like focus the Democratic Party has on secondary issues that guarantee its loss nationally.Â*Â*Unless something changes, Iraq will be a sure winner for Dems in 2008, as it will be this year, and yet I expect the major candidates will seize on something like gay marriage or amnesty for illegal aliens, which will be heart warming to the hard core left of the Democratic base while setting up a potential electoral slaughter in the general election.
No party platform in the history of democracy has ever been totally appealing to the base of a party.Â*Â*Instead of parading issues of dubiousÂ*Â*popularity to the uncommitted middle for the sake of purity, why doesn't the party actually use Iraq to win an election (gasp), and then tackle the more iffy positions?
Now, I'm constantly amazed at the laser-like focus the Democratic Party has on secondary issues that guarantee its loss nationally.Â*Â*Unless something changes, Iraq will be a sure winner for Dems in 2008, as it will be this year, and yet I expect the major candidates will seize on something like gay marriage or amnesty for illegal aliens, which will be heart warming to the hard core left of the Democratic base while setting up a potential electoral slaughter in the general election.
No party platform in the history of democracy has ever been totally appealing to the base of a party.Â*Â*Instead of parading issues of dubiousÂ*Â*popularity to the uncommitted middle for the sake of purity, why doesn't the party actually use Iraq to win an election (gasp), and then tackle the more iffy positions?