tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post114740030427212661..comments2023-07-04T10:30:14.276-04:00Comments on Intrepid Liberal Journal: The Law of Competitive Balance, Howard Dean, and the Democratic Party's Washington EstablishmentRobert Ellmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03526287813354418269noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1147922617996202772006-05-17T23:23:00.000-04:002006-05-17T23:23:00.000-04:00Rob, I couldnt respond to your email (I hit respon...Rob, I couldnt respond to your email (I hit respond and it came back) so am replying here. sorry about that. anyway, what I wrote was:<BR/><BR/>Rob, Im not sure which email you sent this to, so let me know if you got this (I just hit reply, but it says :"no reply blogger") <BR/><BR/>anyway, thanks for checking it out. Im basically just trying to get democrats, liberals or not, to think a little differently strategically. i think that in general they are very poor at this. but that an even worse problem is that they don;'t knwo that they are. a problem that is almost as bad is that because they tend to be smart, they are very resistant to anything poiltical strategy wise that conflicts with the way they see things, despite the clear track record of the past five years that illustrates that the way that they see things strategically, has not worked. (nor is the solution, like the netroots like to say, simply "appealing to the base." it is much more fundamental than that). <BR/><BR/>in essence, republicans are playing chess, while democrats are playing that old card game "war," or maybe :"go fish:"<BR/><BR/>a few of the most basic thoughts, briefly, <A HREF="http://www.pressthenews.com/kostie1.htm" REL="nofollow">are here</A>:<BR/><BR/>I had a pretty key follow up question re blog desing, blogger, etc, but not gonna put it here. <BR/><BR/>instead, will post <A HREF="http://www.pressthenews.com/WWII_pictures.htm" REL="nofollow"> these amazing pictures of WWII</A>, for reasons outlined <A HREF="http://www.pressthenews.com/wwII_comp.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A> <BR/><BR/>anyway, hope you get this,<BR/><BR/>thanks,<BR/>I Carter<BR/>you can write carter@pressthenews.com, really wanna ask about the design, since Icouldn't get blogger to do that)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1147828003374965672006-05-16T21:06:00.000-04:002006-05-16T21:06:00.000-04:00Love your blog, man. As per your request, I've ch...Love your blog, man. As per your request, I've checked it out, love it, and have added you to our blogroll under "Liberal Bloggers". Blog ON, and thanks for giving me a heads up to your blog... it's great!<BR/><BR/>GTL -The GTLā¢https://www.blogger.com/profile/06362594707032250902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1147658285877131732006-05-14T21:58:00.000-04:002006-05-14T21:58:00.000-04:00Wish we could just pinch it off and begin anew... ...Wish we could just pinch it off and begin anew... O! Utopian dreams!Mark Prime (tpm/Confession Zero)https://www.blogger.com/profile/04683863540465969835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1147642393187654032006-05-14T17:33:00.000-04:002006-05-14T17:33:00.000-04:00hey homeslicecheck out this diary and recommend if...hey homeslice<BR/>check out this diary and recommend if you like it?<BR/>http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8526jay lassiterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07345281883426261787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1147552049075511252006-05-13T16:27:00.000-04:002006-05-13T16:27:00.000-04:00Hear, hear.Hear, hear.No Blood for Hubrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02380206118683017717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1147470377192076082006-05-12T17:46:00.000-04:002006-05-12T17:46:00.000-04:00Howard Dean mishandled the Gay Marriage issue. But...Howard Dean mishandled the Gay Marriage issue. But it is emblamatic of the way that democrats mishandle things, by not keeping laser beam focus, as republicans do,on what needs to be communicated,and how to communicate it<BR/><BR/>The correct answer to any question about gay marriage is something that focuses on what needs to be focused on. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.pressthenews.com/bigbrother.htm" REL="nofollow">here's just one example on an extremely critical issue, of many</A>)<BR/><BR/>but if the issue has to be addressed, the correct answer is<BR/><BR/>"marriage is a personal issue, a religious issue, a sociology issue. i am very reluctant,and I think in a cournty based upon civil liberties and and freedom that others should be as well, to start engaging about what the state should do, when this is not the first and foremost business of the state. <BR/><BR/>that said, since our states issue marriage licenses, and these licenses convey legal benefits to those who get married to someone that they love, it means that homosexuals (including Mary Cheney, although she'll probably twist this into an attack on me as well) can not get these same benefits by taking vows with the person that they love. <BR/><BR/>this is discriminatory, and that is a legal issue that does need to be resolved. but as for definitiosn of marriage, I have my own personal views, as do other people, but I think the responsibiit of the state is to address the discriminatory aspect of it, and not goin about defining sociological terms. I certianly know it is not the province of the federal government,and absolutely not the role of the consitution to define sociological or religious institutions for us. <BR/><BR/>do I personally believe marriage is between a man and a women? yes but that is not a platform,nor shold it be a platform.l if the democratic party is going to ahve a platfrom, it is to get the government out of people's business, out of the busines of defning our sociology for us, otu of the businesws of telling peopel what to do, andin the business of secruing a good defnese, sound environemtnal policy, a competitive econonmym,that means with competition not merger after merger leading to oligopoly, like in the oil and gas industry, equality of opportunity, equal justice, and similar aims. <BR/><BR/>this issue should not be used to further polarize America, when we have so many reasons to pull together, to restore our greatness, our freedoms, our liberties, our idepdendence, our leaderhisp role in the world as a beacon for the values of basic and intrinsic rights, for the world...to improve or national security and move forward, not backward, to restore responsibility and accountablity to government, those are all the things that I believe in, and that the democratic party believes in."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1147457959615635752006-05-12T14:19:00.000-04:002006-05-12T14:19:00.000-04:00I find it perpetually frustrating that the party t...I find it perpetually frustrating that the party that HAS consistently opposed the Iraq war from the start, that HAS worked at the grassroots, local level, that HAS been working on long-term strategies for improving our economy, our environment, our voting and campaign and representative systems in politics, our health and health care systems, and so forth, has been marginalized as a bunch of kooks by the media and ignored or mischaracterized continually. I speak, of course, of the <A HREF="http://www.gp.org" REL="nofollow">Green Party</A>. The policies espoused by the Greens have made sense all along, and (some) are now are given lip service to by the Democrats--Howard Dean notwithstanding--but not substantive oompf. If you compare the Democrats, Republicans, and Greens on various issues, you'll see that there<A HREF="http://www.therealdifference.com/issues2.html" REL="nofollow"> isn't that much actual difference</A> between the stances that the Republicans have taken and those that the Democrats have taken. <BR/><BR/>There is one rather significant one, however: the Republicans are driven by psychotic religious fundamentalists as well as corporate greedy-guts, instead of just corportate greedy-guts.<BR/><BR/>But the Democrats consistently undermine that difference by enabling the Republicans to get their way. Look at the way they are backpedaling on the NSA spying!<BR/><BR/>As you can tell, I am utterly outraged by the main two parties' abandonment of the public good. The main argument I hear for voting Democrat rather than Green is that the "Greens can't win"--a fallacy--rather than something substantive, like issue with their policies. People often say to me that they agree with Green policies, but won't vote for them. Like the Democrats are actually doing anything?<BR/><BR/>Greens are winning something like 26% of the races we enter (2005 elections). I think that qualifies as winning sufficiently, even if it's not as skookum as the big guys. We already have 260 candidates this year. <BR/><BR/>grrr.....Deirdre Helfferichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07176487150966377070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1147409306444462372006-05-12T00:48:00.000-04:002006-05-12T00:48:00.000-04:00Absolutely. Nice read!Absolutely. Nice read!Mark Prime (tpm/Confession Zero)https://www.blogger.com/profile/04683863540465969835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19150297.post-1147403269892714272006-05-11T23:07:00.000-04:002006-05-11T23:07:00.000-04:00I completely agree. Democrats have used short term...I completely agree. Democrats have used short term strategies in the past couple of elections and it has failed them. What's more is now, Americans are looking for a real alternative, and to a great extent, Americans don't feel the Democratic party is the answer. Maybe we should have opposed the Iraq war from the start and stayed true to our values!Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01168659716980028654noreply@blogger.com