I've always felt that the Democratic party had conviction issues. We never seem to bottle a message that really reverberates through out the Country. I don't mean one liners...and I don't mean theme songs...I mean content...clarity...conviction and pride. We've spent too much time running away from the very aspects of us that make the Democratic party so great. Our compassion, empathy, inclusiveness and tolerence. We've conceeded our power and direction to members of the party that play it safe-fence sit- try to be all things to all people...the DLC er's....the repub lites.. the Hillary's or the real repub lites like Lieberman.
Well what does that say then? It says we're ashamed of being who we are? It says we're better off playing it safe then taking huge risks? We'll have a better chance of winning if we nominate someone who is "electable" rather than passionate and committed to real solutions and honest shake downs of ideas.
We need an Al Gore with a Karl Rove behind him only a Karl Rove that isn't corrupt but one that is fast, smart, courageous, yes calculating to the right degree,and understands truly what it takes to keep ahead of the filithy manipulations that will be constant during the election cycle.
We need a war room like operation like the one Clinton had. A team of responders. A team who's only job is to hit the air waves and all other outlets in seconds after the repubs spew their crap.
We need our candidate to be passionate and accessable, determined and trusted,intellegent and humble.
need I say just who I beleive fits that bill...but never the less...my focus here is on the stradegy-the people around the person- the team that we will need to have in place if we are to win back the White House....with Al Gore I might add...have to...always have to add that little bit.
Any suggestions? Any names come into mind? Any strategy's brewing?
I'll start by putting out there the obvious....a real exit plan for Iraq! A real plan for home land security. A medicare prescription plan that actually works..and might I say...many many more items to choose from...but what should be our message on any given item?
How do we get the American people to take us seriously again?
I'm all ears.

K

This is a sound-bite world nowadays.

Here's my two-word campaign slogan...

"HAD ENOUGH?"

Build off of that....

Had enough of record deficits?

Had enough war?

Had enough of one-party rule?

Had enough ...

A better speech/scriptwriter would help

What would be different would be to have a candidate that actually lived up to the rhetoric

We have another good slogan...

Vote Democrat or Buy a Bicycle!

Want $5 Dollars a Gallon? Vote GOP!

K, not to worry...the Democrat strategy this year is to "stump" at gasoline stations...and to remind folks WHY and WHO caused gasoline & diesel prices to go "sky high"...the GOP is the party of Texas Oil Hog Execs who are going YEEEEE-HAWWWW! while they gouge the money out of our pockets!

Not changing subjects, but watch the New Orleans mayoral elections...it's a runoff between Landrieu and Nagin...I like them both, but Nagin played the race card with the "chocolate city" remarks...I wish he would have not said that...I look at it this way BOTH Landrieu and Nagin are DEMOCRATS which is a "good sign"...that means MOST voters in NOLA are NOT blaming the Democratic Party for Katrina, and are pushing it up the chain where it belongs...on the doorsteps of BU$H and the GOP! But if Nagin was to retake the office then we could throw it into the faces of Republicans...if it were Nagin's fault then why was HE re-elected? But here is the rub, we want red states to go "blue" this year, and it takes more than just smacking BU$H on the head...He is a sponge-rubber ducky...beating on him will do NO good anymore (unless he gets censured and impeached)...so we MUST go after the Republican Party! Taking Back America is the First Step!

We have GOOD candidates...like Chris Jackson! When are you going to take office kiddo? :good:

Answers to Republican Mistakes:

There are 56 seats available in The House this year...Democrats ONLY need 15 of them to take majority, but we need to take as many as possible!! Answers & solutions are needed...

1) Gasoline: The GOP talks a good game with alternative fuels but do nothing in practice, and say NOTHING when it comes to conservation at all...We propose a tax credit for buying a hybrid car...we propose keeping more ethanol in the gas mixture and not switching in the winter...that prevents to distribution excuse the Oil barons gave us this year...

2)Iraq: Democrats propose to have the Arab League and the world nations have MORE cooperation when dealing with Iraq...you see BU$H shut the world out there so Cheney could give Halliburton a BIG "no-bid" contract...also exclusive contracts went to Bechtel and Blackwater...that is WHY the world refuses to help rebuild Iraq...because there is nothing it it at all for them...what do we expect? That they will work to fill OUR wallets? Open contracting to all nations...and INVITE the Iranians, Syrians, and Saudis into the process...Arabic troops would help us out immensely..even Bush Daddy KNEW that when he organized Desert Storm...to bad his son is stupid enough to give contracts ONLY to HIS RICH FRIENDS!! We CAN exit Iraq if we can garner WORLD SUPPORT!

3) The Economy: Remember the housing market is cooling...energy costs are rising and the GOP is doing nothing...the min wage has not been raised since 1997...Remind folks that the last Recession STARTED in March of 2001 despite what the Right Wing Noise Machine is telling lies about!

There is much more, but here is yet another fact, we have BU$H down to 33% approval which is his "base"...we can't get Dubya any lower...so we must NOW go after the Machinery that put him there...The RIGHT WING NOISE MAKERS!...We need to constantly go after the Right wing Nut Jobs on Conservative Radio...Debunk them online...On Air America...but DO NOT go on their shows! Jerks like Limbaugh and Hannity FEED on Liberals that try to call and fight with them...I say LEAVE THEM BE!...you cannot win against them on THEIR shows...but you can call Franken & Garafalo & Rhodes and POUND THEM INTO THE DIRT! They won't stop you! Contribute to Current TV as well...but Liberals and Democrats have to realize when you FEED the NOISE MACHINE then all you do is HELP THEM...Jerks like Hannity & Limbaugh are just going to twist your words and take you out of context! LEAVE them be! Call you local radio affilaiates and request Air America!...contact cable providers and DEMAND Current TV!

My proof it works, Hannity and his lil bone monkey Mark Levine had to TRAP Alec Baldwin on ANOTHER SHOW to badger him...I say Liberals and democrats need to BOYCOTT shows like Whitman's and anyone at WABC...baldwin did the RIGHT thing by walking out! I say WE ALL NEED TO WALK AWAY! ;)

I think goregirl's point is well taken, that we will have to do more than just talk about how bad things have been (although it will certainly help our case that they've been as bad as they've been). A successful Dem. candidate is going to have to have concrete plans for how to make things better. Kerry, for example, is the only one I know of right now who's saying we need to establish a deadline for getting our troops out of Iraq, and we need to stick to it. Most other Dems. I've heard aren't saying that. They want deadlines, but not for troop withdrawal. They want deadlines for when the Iraqis will take over their gov't, etc. And they don't want the deadlines carved in stone. We'll see if Kerry's strategy works. If nothing else, it sets him apart from the pack.

But this example makes it clear that the Dems. won't be having a unified message during the campaign season. On Iraq alone, we're all over the board: Kerry wants to bring the troops home; Hillary wants to continue the war; others will take some position in between. The same will be true of health care, education, national security, and every other issue on the board. Dems. don't have a unified message, certainly not the way the Reps. do. But those problems will work themselves our during the primary season. Hopefully, once we get a nominee, we'll formulate a concrete platform that speaks to Americans and offers them hope for a better world.

EM, I agree that the Dems have decided to not have a unified message or to "nationalize" the election, at least not right now. Lawrence O'Donnell, who is very connected with party decision-makers, said as much on Olbermann last week. I accept that to the extent that Republicans are trapped at the moment so why put anything out there that has the potential to help them out.

As far as the larger question posed by Goregirl on what the party stands for, all I can say is that one has to be a student of history and start from the 1940's and '50s when the Democratic party was seen as the party of national security and strong internationalist foreign policy. Over the past sixty years decisions made by the Democrats, quite rightly I might add, to support civil rights and a good bit of the women's equality agenda, continuing to support and rely upon labor unions who have dwindled in numbers and power over that same sixty year period, and a post-Vietnam wariness of the defense-industrial complex have transformed the Democratic party into a very loose amalgamation of interest groups instead of a party characterized by basic and broad beliefs like the Republicans.

There are no Scoop Jacksons or Sam Nunns in the party anymore to balance the social liberals of the Democratic party. So, we appear weak on defense and foreign policy issues. This is just a part of the Democrats' dilemma of how to convince Americans that they are ready for leadership.

Excellent analysis Nicholus. And while you're right that there are no Scoop Jacksons or Sam Nunns around today, if Scoop and Sam were around today certain people would smear them as republican-lites. The Dem party is truely a party of the big tent where many ideas and opinions are welcome. Unfortunately that doesn't help in creating a cohesive national platform for the party to run on.
The biggest problem the party has is those on the left who are as bad as the Neocons with their 'my way or the highway' additudes. The party was pulled in this direction in the '80s and we lost three presidential elections in a row because of it.

I have nothing wrong with Dems who are moderates. Heck, Tim Ryan is about as moderate as Dems come, and he's one of my favorite public servants. My problem is people without integrity i.e. Dems who will say things like Saddam Hussein was a threat in need of removal from power.

When debating people, I give in to their sides when I see Dems are wrong, but always assure them my support is for the Democrats in our country. I guess more than anything, it's the economic issues that unite us.

A line in the sand has to be drawn

Those democrats that are NOW FOR leaving Iraq on one side
Those to stay with no deadline on the other

Doesn't really matter what was said in the past, its where they are TODAY

For instance, John Kerry gave a really great speech Saturday. Bravo! The more people not afraid to show a little spirit the better. The more liberal the better to me.

Then show the compassion during Katrina from the liberals.

Those two things in unision...but if one can't say at this point we should get out of Iraq, not interested then

This is Hillary, and this will be her downfall, should she decide to run.

We must first remember our beginning, as a Rightious Nation. That has a Declaration that declares what is called a covenant and a perfect law of perfection. To see the bill of rights and the executive, legislative and judicial branches from the single document is where the Forfathers of us Made the rest to ratify the Constitution in 1788.
Noah webster even made the attempt that with the change in definition of Hath shewn to be changed to have shown , shows the hidden covenant eqaul with the God Elohim, and the method of sow of Diaspora.
Remember, we walk a common law of immunities and priveleges...this means we are We The People as we were called in those days as mush as we would be democrats or republicans.
The 9th article of the Bill of Rights is a very important one...the word or is also in the 5th and the 14th articles of the Bill of Rights. The unabridged definitions of the Webster to gain the obligated definition by law is also. The moral and legal since is always with a perfect person in mind....we are We The Perfect...and we perfect the perfection we see as the manifest of the enumeration we see in the 9th amendment. This is also the self-evident truth we see in the Declaration of 1776. This is the truth of what is commanded by the vault we live in with the Earth's powers, the Laws of nature and Nature's God.
Know this though, we are and live in a time of perdition...as I am a Chridtian raised in Tennessee and born in California we see all the Human Right's Violations and the splitting of the parties politically and all religions done the same as well because of what is called emminant domain.
Good Day,
George Ronald Adkisson

Morning All:

Can someone tell me where the 2008 DNC will be held? I think Al Gore is wonderful.

best,
DW

First, welcome, Dana.

It is my understanding that there are currently nine cities vying for the Democratic National Convention. I am sure the DNC will decide sometime later this year, but to answer your question, I do not think a city has been chosen yet.

Hi, Dana--Welcome, and I hope you'll continue discussing Al Gore and other issues with us here at GSC. :good:

What we NEED to win is the RIGHT CANDIDATE running on a platform of the RIGHT ISSUES and one that skillfully sidesteps the issues that KILLED us in the last two elections.......... I can elaborate.
I call those issues "The Polling Place Issues".
They are what people are talking about while waiting to vote.

Btw.... The RIGHT candidate....... I-S N-O-T H-I-L-L-I-A-R-Y.
If she is the candidate will "I" vote for her? Of course....
I'd vote for an UNTRAINED MONKEY before I'd vote for a guy like Bush.

It's not ME that WE have to get to vote for OUR candidate.
It's a whole lot of those that voted for the chimp. TWICE.

I think most of the postings in this forum are great ideas and I love the enthusiasum.........but first things first.

We need to have an effective way to stop the stealing of votes in this country.
The last two presidential elections in this country were won by the Democtrats but stolen right out from under us by a pre-emptive and calculated strike against the minority populations in this country.

Hanging chads on voter cards is just one example of the smoke screen the GOP
has used to eliminate votes.........with a very high percentage of these "spoiled" votes in low income and under represented parts of the USA.


How do we have a fair and honest election in this country ?
This is the question that needs to be answered to make the outcome credible.

Welcome, nomorebush. A "fair and honest election" seems to be impossible as long as the Bush family is involved. We all know that little thieving George cannot run again, but there is always the possiblity of Jeb Bush running in 2008. I sure hope not, but if he does I have that fear of another rigged and stolen election.

It would be a much different world if ALL the votes had been counted in 2000 in Florida. I believe the 2004 election was stolen as well, but the theft of the 2000 election will never go away.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll.../607300562/1030

Article published Jul 30, 2006

Put election system to a vote
Residents should decide about Sarasota County's voting equipment

In the past four years, Sarasota County's touchscreen voting machines have worked rather well. But they lack an independently verifiable paper trail, and they aren't likely to gain that capacity any time soon.

So, should the county ditch the touchscreens? A local group thinks so, and wants voters to answer that question affirmatively in November.

The group, Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, wants to switch (in 2008) to an optical-scan, paper-ballot system. It's not a new technology -- Manatee County and dozens of other communities in Florida have used it for years. The paper ballots have the advantage of providing an independently verifiable trail of votes, in case of anomalies, suspected fraud or a recount. Advocates contend that the optical-scan system is also simpler and less expensive to deploy than touchscreens, which can require significant technical support.

SAFE mounted a petition drive to put its proposal (as well as several related reforms) to voters, and submitted the necessary signatures earlier this summer. Under the county's charter, the county commissioners must place the issue on the ballot -- whether or not they think it's a good idea.

Let the debate begin

Approving it for the ballot is a multistep process, and we urge the commissioners to get it under way as soon as possible so the measure is ready to be voted on in the November general election.

That's not much time to explore the pros and cons of this complex proposal. The sooner the debate begins, the better.

To be sure, abandoning touchscreens would be problematic for Sarasota County. Millions in tax dollars could be affected. Assuming the measure passed legal muster, implementing it would involve revamping election procedures, retraining poll workers and re-educating voters -- major endeavors that are crucial to smooth operations. Switching to an optical-scan system could bring back some of the risks inherent in paper ballots, i.e., they can be lost, stolen, altered or damaged, and sometimes they're not roomy enough to cope with a long slate of races and referendums.

On the other hand, having the tangible, original ballots on hand can be pretty darn appealing, considering the "glitches" reported with touchscreen use in such places as South Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and others. Screens have frozen or gone blank, needed recalibration, and even scrambled vote tallies. In certain Mercer County, Pa., precincts, for example, citizens trying to cast ballots in November 2004 had to vote in reverse, "starting on the last page of the touchscreen system and working back to the front page," according to The Vindicator, a newspaper in Youngstown, Ohio.

Problems like these are blamed on human and software errors, which, in truth, can affect any voting system. They haven't significantly afflicted Sarasota County, but neither have they strengthened confidence in the technology. Awareness is growing that, because touchscreens record their selections on computer chips, there is no independent proof that the machines did their job correctly. This is of increasing concern in the wake of a new Brennan Center study, which found several ways in which electronic voting software is vulnerable to tampering.

Security should be improved

Sarasota County's touchscreens are user-friendly, but they need security improvements and Florida -- after an initial burst of reforms in the wake of the 2000 election fiasco -- has been slow to develop them.

Maybe Sarasota County voters, faced with a choice of living with uncertainty or paying for a new election system, can shake bureaucracy out of its complacency. Surely they deserve the opportunity.

Basically, an Al Gore type that's more moderate on guns.

And less pro-trade agreements that cost American jobs.

So you're saying you don't think Gore's the one?

I hate to say it, but there are more important issues than guns.

No, because as important as having jobs in America is, it's not as important as global warming. I really wish Gore would change his position though...

True, i like the idea of "Fair" trade that Bayh has taken.

Maybe to you, AGIML. You ask this same question to an avid gun owner and see what his/her response is. Fact of the matter is, the gun vote has an incredible impact. Remember: 40% of all U.S. homes have guns and 81% of Americans say that the gun issue will be an important issue in determining which Congressional candidate to vote for.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_Gun_Control.htm

From what i have gathered at other forums, Al Gore lost a TON of votes because of this issue. To this day, these same people said they would probably vote for Gore is he would take a more moderate stance on gun control.

When i say a more "Moderate" stance, i don't necessarily mean a total NRA stance; basically, for an example, no rediculous bans that don't accomplish anything and maintaining the current laws that we have.

Like the stance of my Governor, Janet Napolitano:

"The right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, and is therefore fundamental to the liberty interests of all Americans. I believe elected officials have a duty to ensure that these interests are not abridged. My position on the 2nd Amendment is simple: existing laws related to firearms and their possession are a sufficient framework by which to ensure the safety of all Arizonans. Rather than focusing on new legislation, we must first be vigilant in our enforcement of the laws that are on the books. We must step up outreach and education efforts to ensure that gun safety is at the top the agenda, and work together to mitigate tragic accidents that result from unsupervised firearm use by children. Parents talking to their children about gun safety and practicing gun safety in front of them will accomplish this goal, new legislation will not."

Don't think that, by me saying this, i'm not only slamming Al Gore. This goes for everyone else who shares that same opinion like, for an example, my other favorite, Evan Bayh. As a matter a fact, i like the stance Mark Warner and Russ Feingold have on this issue... it's a good one.

If he did this, he would be damn near perfect. This is saying a lot considering it's rare that one thinks a politician is perfect.

It seems like the issue of gun control has completely dropped off the radar. They haven't really talked about it in Washington since last year, which is good.

With all that's going on in the world, gun control has taken a back seat.

FD, out of curiosity, what is it about Gore's stance on guns that you don't like? To my knowledge, it's quite sensible, and allows sportsmen to have guns, but restricts people from being able to just go buy a gun in the heat of the moment.

Where's the problem? How many hunters are faced with emergency hunting expeditions where they need a gun NOW?

Yeah, but the moment we nominate an anti-gun candidate, it'll all come back.

I think it's hypocritical of, what is mostly Liberals, to have their panties up in a bunch when the 1st and 4th Amendment's are being threatened but when the 2nd Amendment is threatened, they don't mind it at all.

We should be pissed if ALL are being threatened. It's unconstitutional to infringe on OUR rights as Americans.

The thing is, the Democrats in favor of gun control say it's only targeting the criminals and it has no effect on hunters. WRONG.

-What did the 1994 assault weapons ban do? Tooks guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and banned the future sale of them. Not only were automatic weapons not mentioned in this ban, but it also said nothing about how powerful the bullets were.

-What did the recent handgun ban do in San Francisco? Took the guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens (Thank goodness that ban was repealed).

I can go on but this topic isn't about gun control and we have already been over this a million times.

All of what's below, i disagree with Gore on:

http://www.issues2002.org/Al_Gore.htm#Gun_Control

No special lawsuit protection for gun makers. (Sep 2000)
Agrees with Bush on banning weapons; but wants registration. (Apr 2000)
Take on the NRA with presidential leadership. (Mar 2000)
Passed toughest gun control in 30 years; same for next 30. (Feb 2000)
raise age to 21. (Jan 2000)
Maximize gun control within what’s politically possible. (Jan 2000)
Supports Brady Law and ban on assault weapons. (May 1999)

I'll leave this post with a quote i posted earlier from my Governor:

"Rather than focusing on new legislation, we must first be vigilant in our enforcement of the laws that are on the books. We must step up outreach and education efforts to ensure that gun safety is at the top the agenda, and work together to mitigate tragic accidents that result from unsupervised firearm use by children. Parents talking to their children about gun safety and practicing gun safety in front of them will accomplish this goal, new legislation will not."

Well, see, the problem there, for me anyway, is in how you interpret the second amendment. I read it as having to do with the need for a militia, not with the inherent right of citizens to bear arms for whatever reason they choose.

But as you point out, we've been down this road before . . .

Also, FD, things have changed just a mite since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. Is it not reasonable to adjust the second amendment accordingly?

The Constitution is supposed to be a fluid, living document, not something carved in stone like the Ten Commandments. As times change, as people gain new understandings of issues, new amendments are passed that change or even nullify parts of the original document. A change in the second amendment certainly bears looking at, given how different things are today.

I used to be a big supporter of the "assault weapons bans" and the like, but my mind has changed quite a bit.

EM, what gun control legislation do you think we need (besides the registration)?

That same arguement can be applied to other amendments, such as the 1st or the 4th which have become popular topics in the news lately, no?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Say what you want, but the 2nd Amendment clearly states, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

All of the Amendments, regardless of which one, should never be infringed upon.

No, that's not what the second amendment says. It says, and I quote:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That opening clause holds the key to the entire statement. You can't just take it out and pretend it doesn't exist. They put it at the front of the statement, meaning that everything that follows in the statement is built off of that. In other words, they were talking about a well regulated militia and its necessity to the security of a free State.

If you're going to quote things, quote the whole thing, or you're guilty of manipulating words to suit your agenda.

You can keep your opinion on the gun issue, but if they're ever needed, i hope you have another way of protecting yourself. One thing i have learned in my entire 21 year existance, anything is possible, especially in a world that looks as if it's only getting worse. If an invading enemy comes to our shores, threatening our American way of life, and is too much for our military to handle, then all that's going to be left are these militias to guard our country (Which are in bigger numbers than one would think).

You can't just assume that this could never happen. As long as there are still these militias, which could be the last line of defense, then the 2nd Amendment still stands.

One thing is for sure, if an invading enemy, for an example, enters my house, he/she is going to get two in the chest and one in the head. Have fun throwing your rocks.

If I could trust every yahoo with a gun to keep it and use it responsibly, there'd be no problem. But this isn't why most people have guns and you know it. And there are too many kooks, too many ill-intentioned people wandering around with guns for me to be comforted in the slightest by the thought that we have a well-armed militia ready to defend us in the case of an attack.

That's exactly the way I feel about guns. Too many of the WRONG people with thug like attitudes are gun owners and that to me is quite dangerous. Have you ever known some of these type of gun owners? I have and believe me, they are definitely people to avoid.

First of all, you, as well as i, have no idea why most people have guns. Could it be because it's one of our rights? Yes. Could it be because of protection? Yes. Until we have spoken to every gun owning American, we just don't know.

Second, you make some valid points in your last post; although, banning guns will do NOTHING to stop this. This is the point that i am trying to make. If you ban guns, the only people who are going to have guns are the criminals who we all agree shouldn't have them. I'm all for sensible legislation like backround checks at guns shows, trigger locks, etc. Never once have i denied this. But, when politicians, who don't know a damn thing about guns, try and ban them from law abiding citizens, this is when i come out in defense of my right to own a gun because, well, it threatens my right. Backround checks and trigger locks don't.

Remember: The point is to take the guns out of the hands of the criminals, and not the law abiding citizens.

Want another example of sensible legislation? Look into Project Exile which, if i may add, was and still is NRA endorsed. It did/does what it's suppose to: Take the guns out of the hands of the criminals, and not the law abiding citizens.