Americans re generally in favor of Democratic issues such as preserving Social Security, safeguarding the environment and ending the Iraq occupation.

Whereas Democrats may lack the ability to "catapult the propaganda," Republicans hide their true agenda behind fancy, well researched sound bites.

They just can't come up with any good ideas. Michigan wanted to move up the primary so the national canididates could address the issues. that will soon plauge the rest of the country. The republicans came out, Duncan Hunter threw out some great ideas. The Democrats won't come out they are hiding. On the Michigan Primary ballot there is only Hitlery, No biden, no obama, no richardson, gravel, no Edwards. No choice in michigan if your a democrat Hillary is the only one on the primary ballot

Liberal,

You perfectly illustrate the Alternate Universe you liberal live in - the plain fact of the matter is that if the Democrats were to openly proclaim their program, they'd be rejected at the polls. All through 2006 it was "we need a new direction in Iraq"...then, when they get in, they spend a long time saying "we need to end the war in Iraq"...now that another election year is coming up, they are moving back to "we need a new direction in Iraq" rhetoric. Why? Because the de-facto defeatism represented in an immediate or quick withdrawal from Iraq is the opinion of a tiny, leftist minority - and Democrats don't want to carry that into 2008. You've been conned.

Democrats are all about propaganda - saying whatever seems to be necessary at the moment to maximise their ability to win an election. In 2007, this involved stroking lefty sentiment...and it worked; you guys have poured in the money. But in 2008, it will involve getting Average American to vote for them, and thus the anti-war rhetoric is being dialed back.

LiberalMind - but the Democrats killed a social security reform initiative that was virtually the same as the one proposed by Bill Clinton. We asked and asked and asked what your alternative was. We got only silence in reply. So, just what the hell are you even talking about?

Your party appears to be for:
1. Restriction of civil rights- notably 1st and 2nd amendment restrictions. The recent moves to silent opposition political speech and the never ending assault on the second amendment come to mind.

2. Taxes Taxes Taxes- I have a hard time keeping up with the competing wealth redistribution plans.

3. Pollution and global warming - yes, you read correctly. Proof? The movie industry is the second biggest polluter in California and the liberals in Massachusetts killed a windmill program because of their NIMBY attitudes.

4. Killing unborn children that they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt are not people.

5. Not killing adult murderers who face death as the result of their own actions.

6. Defeat in Iraq and the mid-east through precipitous withdrawal with little regard to the consequences. Though honestly, its hard to define just where your party actually is on this issue.

7. Continuuing to control the black vote by buying it no matter what the long term social damage is. And ignoring the dame done also, actually.

8. Making important decisions about defense and equipment based upon political favors and congressional districts (AKA Murtha).

Correct me.

Kahn, Mark:

I am not going to do your homework for you. You can easily research polls and attitudes regarding the major current issues and see that the Democratic agenda is closely aligned with American sentiments.

The Democrats were elected despite the endless smear of "San Fransisco" liberal Pelosi and "defeatocrats" and so on.

It is now the dead-ender Republicans in Congress that are obstructing the will of the American people. Where the Democrats are failing is in pointing this out and then compromising with Bush and the minority party.

I don;t defend the Democrats unconditionally as you the Republicans even when their failures are so obvious.

Kahn, your post is proof positive that you have accepted all of the Republican talking points despite their obvious specious nature.

See you two in 2008!

My favorite verbal dodge is Hillary's answer to how she would handle (fill in the blank):

"We have to do it smarter."

What the H@LL does that mean???!!!!

And yet the media never challenges her on this answer by asking her what she means.

http://www.avengingangels.org/

LM - polls and attitudes reflect indoctrination and the effects of a slanted media and entertainment industry.

What about actual issues? What are liberals actually for? Or do you even know?

If my points are "talking points", I notice you didn't actually refute them. Tell me where I'm wrong. Not just that I'm wrong, but where I'm wrong? Come on, use that enormous liberal brain.

I don;t defend the Democrats unconditionally as you the Republicans even when their failures are so obvious.

You have evidently not read many of Marks or Kahns posts (or you're dishonest - gasp!)

Both Mark and Kahn, along with many of us, have berated the Republicans for their excessive spending, their pandering to the left, the appoinment of Harriet Meiers, their many failed tactics in the GWOT, their inability to do something about SS, etc, etc.

Alexis,

Thank you for the link to the juvenile far left web site.

It's always good to know what immature people are reading these days.

I do have one question. Do you support the UN?

"An internal memo faults the Democratic Party's message for inability to win over voters."

Inability to win over voters?? lol!

Uh, you buffoons did watch the last election, didn't you? Was that not enough of a drubbing? Well, don't worry - there's plenty more drubbing to come for the GOP in '08.

Predictions? I think Dems gain ta least 5 in the Senate, and 10 more in the House in '08... and win the White House. Which will actually really suck, considering the enormity of the mess to clean up after 8 years of gross ineptitude and eviscerating corporate greed.

Aaron, well - so where are the Democrats on the issues? Or, do YOU even know?

Here's your chance. Win us over. Tell me how wrong I am... (Not just that I'm wrong - be specific)

Score:
LiberalMind - refuses to state positions
alexanderdelarge - refuses to state positions
Aarontime-???

Uh, you buffoons did watch the last election, didn't you? Was that not enough of a drubbing?

Not much of a student of history, are you AT? In 5 elections, going back to Eisenhower, the party in control of the WH in the mid-term elections in the second term of all 2-term presidents have lost an average of 26 House seats and 6 Senate seats. Last fall the GOP lost 31 House seats and 6 Senate seats -- not only not a drubbing, not even statistically different from the historic norm.

Which will actually really suck, considering the enormity of the mess to clean up after 8 years of gross ineptitude and eviscerating corporate greed.

Care to expand on that, or didn't your DNC email give any specifics?

Airhead,

The "mandate" the Democrats felt they won in '06 has been so obtusely abused by Reid and Pelosi that I wouldn't be surprised to see a complete reversal of fortune in '08. In fact, the two following elections could be a precursor for things to come.

Bobby Jindal, a 36-year-old Republican Congressman, won the Louisiana gubernatorial election, becoming the nation's first governor of Indian-American descent and the youngest chief executive of any state. Jindal took 54% of the vote in the state's off-year open primary,......he said during his Saturday night victory speech at a Baton Rouge Holiday Inn. "Those days [of corruption and incompetence] are officially over. There has never been a clearer mandate for our state."

On October 16th, 2007, Ogonowski lost the special election to Democrat Nicola "Niki" Tsongas by a 51%-45% margin, a stronger than expected performance for a Republican in a district that gave Senator John Kerry over 58% in 2004

Khaaaaan -

well, if you ask where "Democrats" are on the issues, I can't be too specific simply because there are lots of Democrats with lots of different positions. Not everybody in the Democratic party has the same specific views on every issue, which is true of the Repubs as well.

But here are some general positions:

- On Abortion: Generally pro-choice
- On Guns: Generally pro-gun control
- On Iraq: Generally wanting to extricate ourselves from the Iraqi money sinkhole as soon as militarily feasible (probably 1 year at least)
- On the Environment: Generally more proactive
- On Foreign policy: Generally less inclined to reach for military options as a first resort, and support a more multi-lateral approach to foreign policy.
- On Science: Generally accept that evolution happened, and generally prefer scientific reasoning to religious superstition.
- On Health Care: Generally support some form of single-payer plan to cover health care for at least some portion of the population over what is provided now.
- On Energy: Generally support more research grants into alternative energy technologies, and favor conservation and developing renewable sources over increased exploration for fossil fuels.
- On Governing Philosophy: Generally see government's role as extending beyond just national security - to include education, infrastructure, health care, and protection of the environment (all of which are actually as important to national security as a strong military), while limiting government power to curtail civil rights, legislate morality, or infringe upon privacy.

I think Americans are more on the side of Democrats on these issues than on Republicans.

An issue which I think the Dems are too soft on is that of corporate influence over policy-making and elections. Unfortunately, the Dems are addicted to corporate money as well. This undermines anything else the Dems supposedly want to do. As long as that is the case, it really is neither Dems nor Republicans, nor you or I who run this country - but rather, it's corporations that decide what policy will be, and who gets elected.

It's ridiculous that we pretend to export democracy to other countries when in fact we have precious little democracy left here at home. In reality, most of our laws and national policies today get written by corporations. Ours is a government by the Corporation, for the Corporation, and of the Corporation. That's something that both conservatives and liberals should be alarmed by.

Spook -

"In 5 elections, going back to Eisenhower, the party in control of the WH in the mid-term elections in the second term of all 2-term presidents have lost an average of 26 House seats and 6 Senate seats."

So, the party in control of the White House in the mid-term elections of all 2nd term presidents lost seats? Nope. In 1998, the mid-term elections for Bill Clinton's 2nd term in office, the Republicans gained a net zero House Seats and net zero Senate seats.

Before 1998, the last mid-term to happen during a 2nd presidential term was 1986 - in that year, the Dems gained only a net 5 House seats.

You have to go way way back to the quasi-2nd-term mid-terms of 1966 and 1974 to see the large losses that you're implying are the "statistical norm", and that was because of discontent with Vietnam and Watergate respectively.

So yeah, 2006 was a significant drubbing. And you've got more coming.

A wonderful description of how Libs think.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=70c_1192920246

Practically every lib I know fits this description.

Aarontime: You have to go way way back to the quasi-2nd-term mid-terms of 1966 and 1974 to see the large losses that you're implying are the "statistical norm", and that was because of discontent with Vietnam and Watergate respectively.

True, but the GOP got absolutely creamed in the second mid-terms of the Eisenhower administration (1958), and that really drove up the averages.

But does it really matter? After all, 2008 is not a mid-term election. And as far as I can tell, there is no historical trend after 8 years of one administration, regardless of what happened 2 years before. Apparently, other factors are at work.

I also agree with Aarontime's statement: "Not everybody in the Democratic party has the same specific views on every issue, which is true of the Repubs as well." General trends might generally define the party, and generally define the presidential candidate in each case, there is much more variability within individual House or Senate races. In those cases it has much more to do with how the individual candidates identify and frame the issues, how well they campaign, how much positive name recognition they have, and how well they are funded. You generally need a good deal of at least three of those four things, relative to the opposition, to get elected.

And frankly, I don't think either presidential candidate, no matter who they are, are likely to have much in the way of coattails this time around. It's still early, but that's my feeling right now.

Ricorun -

"And frankly, I don't think either presidential candidate, no matter who they are, are likely to have much in the way of coattails this time around".

Well, that will certainly be the case if the Republican candidate wins the WH. But whoever wins the Presidential race, it is hard to imagine that another thrashing isn't in store for Republicans in the House and Senate - especially the Senate. The Repubs have 22 seats to defend in the Senate this time around, while Dems only have 12. For Repubs, several of their incumbent seats up for re-election look vulnerable, while the Dem seats all look safe. In addition, 5 Republican Senators have announced they will not seek re-election.

And on top of all that, it looks like Sen Larry Craig will fight for his right to stay in the Senate. Way to go Sen Craig! Throw in Bush's record setting low approvals by fall of '08, and you have a perfect storm aligning against Repub election hopes. (yeah, I know Bush is not on the ballot in '08 - but it doesn't help to have such an unpopular president associated with your party).

I would be surprised if the Dems don't pick up at least 5 more Senate seats - and then they can tell Lieberwoman to bugger off. Anyone care to wager?

Aaaaarrroonnnn - good post. Fair point about trying to pin down the actual Democrat position.

- On Abortion: Generally pro-choice
So you now PROVE that the fetus is not a human life?

- On Guns: Generally pro-gun control
Screw the Constitution eh? If you want to control guns, step up and be the first party to suggest rescinding one of the Rights in the Bill Of Rights.

- On Iraq: Generally wanting to extricate ourselves from the Iraqi money sinkhole as soon as militarily feasible (probably 1 year at least)
Is this the Democrat position? Hard to tell. Its the Republican position also, by the way.

- On the Environment: Generally more proactive
So you propose strict new controls on the motion picture industry and you decry Massachusetts stifling wind mill projects and Teddy Kennedy's laws that severely restricted wind mill projects all over the country?

- On Foreign policy: Generally less inclined to reach for military options as a first resort, and support a more multi-lateral approach to foreign policy.
Lets examine that statement. All we have to really tell is the last two Democrat Presidents.
1. Carter - 24 January 1980, the “Carter Doctrine”.Helped raise the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and began prepositioning equipment at Diego Garcia. This equiment was later used in Gulf War 1. He also launched an attack into Iran.
2.Clinton - Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan. All either invaded, bombed, or missile attacked.

- On Science: Generally accept that evolution happened, and generally prefer scientific reasoning to religious superstition.
I'll just accept this at face value, but reject the inference that Republicans don't believe the same things.

- On Health Care: Generally support some form of single-payer plan to cover health care for at least some portion of the population over what is provided now.
Well, the problem is in the definitions and scope aren't they? As phrased, Republicans support this also. Start defining what you mean and welllll -

- On Energy: Generally support more research grants into alternative energy technologies, and favor conservation and developing renewable sources over increased exploration for fossil fuels.
So how do you explain the liberal aversion to windmills and nuclear power. This isn't Star Trek. There are no anti-matter reactors. You have to work with what you have. Your pie-in-the-sky statement ends up meaning you stifle real attempts to solve these problems.

- On Governing Philosophy: Generally see government's role as extending beyond just national security - to include education, infrastructure, health care, and protection of the environment (all of which are actually as important to national security as a strong military), while limiting government power to curtail civil rights, legislate morality, or infringe upon privacy.
vague - but I notice that Democrats are trying to stifle opposition political speech, regularly attack civic and religious groups that do good on political grounds (Catholic charities, the Salvation Army, the Boy Scouts). I also see you don't consider the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights as Civil Rights and you discount the rights of unborn babies you can't prove are not human.

Thanks for sharing. None of your cohorts will. They'll come back with insults. It proves they don't understand their own positions and aren't very smart.