Next Senate Minority Leader

[azaelia]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 3 2004, 11:16 PM'] It's funny how conservatives only see "abortion" and "gay rights" when they see the word Democrat.

Sad because it was the democratic party that molded this country. Sad because it was the Democratic party that has always stood for the protection of those that aren't rich and those that have no say in what goes on in this Government. The Republicans have long changed since their first "good years" in which they were almost a mirror of the Democratic party. [/quote]
The Democratic Party has deserted it's original stance and gone off on a tangent. It has become a party focused on "abortion" and "gay rights". The true Democrats of the same mind as the Party that "molded this country" have been deserted idealogically by their party.

[quote]Most Republicans of today are born-again Christians and neoconservatives who believe that imposing their believes on others only helps this planet and God is happy. Well I could care less if God is happy. And so do many others. Most focus on minor issues such as abortion because they feel that they can make another person do their will against their own personal decision. [/quote]

Thank you for that lovely, over-generalized label. Sorry to burst your bubble, but lawmaking itself is forcing views on the people. Whether that view is centered on a morality or not is what decides whether people will make a stink about it and cry "Separation of Church and State!"

[quote]Let me ask you something, how does it affect you, your life or your morals when a woman decides not to have a baby? Why does it affect you?[/quote]

How does murder affect you when a husband decides to have his wife killed becuase she's cheating on him? Why does that affect you?

[Good Friday]

[quote name='MagiDragon']This could be an incredibly awesome opportunity for Bush to nominate some excellent judges! The only threat is the dreaded name of Clinton. She may try to take the position for herself.[/quote]
Sen. Harry Reid is almost certain to become the next Democratic minority leader. Sen. Chris Dodd has said that he isn't going to run, and I think that Sen. Reid, with his soft-spoken nature and more moderate approach, will be the image that the Democratic Party will now want to project until 2008. In 2008, I predict that a more moderate Democrat will be nominated to run against the Republican presidential candidate, to try to respond to the electorate's demand for "moral values."

I don't think Sen. Clinton will become the next minority leader. For one thing, I don't think she'll run. She's comfortable in New York, and I think at this point she won't want to rock the boat -- if she becomes minority leader, she will also become a serious target of the Republicans, which could cost her the Senate seat altogether. And I don't think she wants to run for President at this point, because she'll fear the same fate as Sen. Kerry. That's a definite career-ender. Besides that, even if she did run, I don't think the Democrats in the Senate will elect her. Sen. Hilary Clinton is definitely [b]not[/b] the image that they need to project right now, and I think they'll realize that.

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='azaelia' date='Nov 3 2004, 11:27 PM'] The Democratic Party has deserted it's original stance and gone off on a tangent. It has become a party focused on "abortion" and "gay rights". The true Democrats of the same mind as the Party that "molded this country" have been deserted idealogically by their party.



Thank you for that lovely, over-generalized label. Sorry to burst your bubble, but lawmaking itself is forcing views on the people. Whether that view is centered on a morality or not is what decides whether people will make a stink about it and cry "Separation of Church and State!"



How does murder affect you when a husband decides to have his wife killed becuase she's cheating on him? Why does that affect you? [/quote]
No it hasn't. The Democrat party has always stood for those rights of the less fortunate and those in need. The questions of liberalism was almost never brought up into play by the Democrats. And let me remind you that it was the GOP who centered all attention to this issues to Bush accusing Kerry of being "the most liberal" to attempting to amend the constitution. All this in order to project that view of Democrats. Those topics are almost never touched and most people know that Democrats defend those liberties. But once the GOP started seeing that Democrats were gaining ground they played their religious card and it worked. Bringing back into focus those issues.

The Democrats only spoke of economy, terrorism and more important issues and seldomly addressed those issues during that campaign. The GOP pushed those issues and painted a false impression that they defend religious beliefs when in reality their history of members and supporters show the contrary.

Generalization...almost half of America doesn't seem like a generalization. The fact is that Republicans are looking at this like such a tremendous lost when it really wasn't. Four million votes is a very narrow margin in the big picture of this election and we have seen how easily we could of taken some states if it wasn't for rich evangelicals trying to link God with Government.

You are right the lawmaking itself is forcing views on it's people. AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE WRONG. The Government is supposed to implement public policy not private. And during this four years in self-destruction people will cry "Separation of Church and State" and the Supreme Court will probably not even take a look at it.


It doesn't. I feel bad for the family but that's about it. The truth is that you are trying to pose abortion as murder when it really can't be associated with it. A mother who chooses abortion has her own logic and reasons to follow through with it. I've said before that I don't care much for abortion and I do wish it didn't happen but I can't enforce my views on other women who have their own braind and conscience. You can say you are protecting the unborn. Good and after they have them? Who is going to protect the already born? Not the Republican party.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote]The Democrat party has always stood for those rights of the less fortunate and those in need.[/quote]

Revisionist history?

[quote]You can say you are protecting the unborn. Good and after they have them? Who is going to protect the already born? Not the Republican party.[/quote]
Ahhh, the welfare-state mentality...

Well, let's start with a nationwide network of crisis pregnancy centers:
[url="http://www.prolifeaction.org/links.htm#help"]http://www.prolifeaction.org/links.htm#help[/url]

Add a few million couples waiting to adopt:
[url="http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/s_seek.cfm"]http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/s_seek.cfm[/url]

No government welfare program needed...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 3 2004, 09:16 PM'] Let me ask you something, how does it affect you, your life or your morals when a woman decides not to have a baby? Why does it affect you? [/quote]
Simple, my sister was almost one of those babies.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 4 2004, 05:32 AM']
Generalization...almost half of America doesn't seem like a generalization. The fact is that Republicans are looking at this like such a tremendous lost when it really wasn't. Four million votes is a very narrow margin in the big picture of this election and we have seen how easily we could of taken some states if it wasn't for rich evangelicals trying to link God with Government.

You are right the lawmaking itself is forcing views on it's people. AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE WRONG. The Government is supposed to implement public policy not private. And during this four years in self-destruction people will cry "Separation of Church and State" and the Supreme Court will probably not even take a look at it.


It doesn't. I feel bad for the family but that's about it. The truth is that you are trying to pose abortion as murder when it really can't be associated with it. A mother who chooses abortion has her own logic and reasons to follow through with it. I've said before that I don't care much for abortion and I do wish it didn't happen but I can't enforce my views on other women who have their own braind and conscience. You can say you are protecting the unborn. Good and after they have them? Who is going to protect the already born? Not the Republican party. [/quote]
lol
Four million is quite a bit , its the biggest margin in years.
If you think government is not linked to God , I suggest you start reading some stuff by the Founding Fathers.

I think it is hysterically funny that you think lawmakers forcing their views on others is wrong. What do you call laws against bank robbery and murder: "suggestions"? Do you run every redlight you can because its a law? What if everyone felt that way. Would you be safe to go out your door?

Abortion is the murder of a human being. Yes a mother can use her own twisted logic to justify her action, but are you trying to claim each of us can have our own version of twisted logic and thats ok? Is that logical? Or that each persons morality can be unique? Consciences don't come with their own brands. Each of us is born with the same basic set of rules in our systems. You can twist or ignor it, but you can't change the instructions that came with each person.


If you really thought each person should have their own set of rules you would never leave the house. And you better hope the next person you meet isn't operating under those assumptions or you might be dead before you get to the corner.

Edited November 4, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Theoketos]

Welcome again to Phatmass!

Let us always be honest.


[quote]Most Republicans of today are born-again Christians and neoconservatives who believe that imposing their believes on others only helps this planet and God is happy. Well I could care less if God is happy. And so do many others. Most focus on minor issues such as abortion because they feel that they can make another person do their will against their own personal decision. [/quote]

First off, no one is imposing "beliefs" on any one else.

Your comment about God being happy, I think really points to something else, namely wether there is something like ultimate truth, which is something that goes beyond denomination, race, sexual preferance, socio-economical background.

And I agree with you that there are many people who claim that they do not care about God, and also act like they do not. This is even more sad.

Lastly, if abortion is not murder then it is no big deal, but if it is murder, then Abortion is the biggest issue, I think that you can agree with that.

[Pio Nono]

Harry Reid is not pro-life.

[Pio Nono]

I was going to post the same thing. Harry Reid supports banning PBA and that is it. I think he will be the new minority leader, but it might be a wild card. My pick is Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Jon Corzine, Mary Landrieu, or Maria Cantwell.

[MagiDragon]

aww man! way to burst my bubble! oh well . . . it's still much better than the vast majority of democrats in high places . . . though not nearly as good as i'd hoped. I guess we just pray and hope that God watches out for us as well as He seems to have already done in this election.

Peace,
Joe

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote]Maria Cantwell[/quote]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Pro-choice politician from my state of Washington!!!!!

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Pio Nono']I was going to post the same thing. Harry Reid supports banning PBA and that is it. I think he will be the new minority leader, but it might be a wild card. My pick is Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Jon Corzine, Mary Landrieu, or Maria Cantwell.[/quote]
Isn't Mary Landrieu pro-life? And wasn't she also a Republican at some point? I'm honestly not familiar with the other names mentioned.

As for Sen. Reid, he is somewhat pro-life. He has received as high as a 66% rating from National Right to Life, which is higher than most Democrats and higher than some Republicans, and his current rating from National Right to Life is 55% -- which means that he votes the way that National Right to Life thinks he should over half of the time. Compared with Sen. Daschle, whose highest rating from National Right to life is 27% and whose usual rating from National Right to Life is 0%, Sen. Reid is obviously a better choice and a signal that the Democratic Party is [b]moving[/b] in a different direction. Obviously, it isn't there yet, but going from a Senator with a 27% rating from National Right to Life (and that's the highest rating Daschle has ever had) to a candidate who has a 55% rating from National Right to Life and who once had a 66% rating is good news.

Add to this the fact that President Bush himself may have a less than 100% rating from National Right to Life, since he is only "quasi" pro-life -- we simply don't know what his rating would be, because he has no voting record for them to evaluate, he has never held an office in which one casts votes -- and it may well be that Sen. Reid would at least be close to Bush's own rating, if not above it. That's only speculation, but my point is that 55% pro-life is a heck of a lot better than 0%, and I hope people aren't going to minimize the significance of it because these are Democrats and they don't like Democrats.

[JP2Iloveyou]

I'll grant you that Reid is a lot better than Daschle, without a doubt. Landrieu was never a Republican, to the best of my knowledge. She is against stem-cell research, so that is a plus for her, but I would hardly call her pro-life. Jon Corzine is a liberal from New Jersey who was in charge of getting democratic candidates elected to the Senate. Based on their dismal showing overall, I doubt if he is even considered, but he is trying to move up in the party. Cantwell is a liberal, pro-abortion "Catholic" from Washington, but she is young and I think is moving up in Washington politics. Bill Nelson is from Florida and is pretty centrist on a lot of issues, not life issues though. Being from the south gives him a boost because the dems need to start running better in the south. That used to be their strong spot in the country, now it is all republican down there, at least on a national level. Ben Nelson is a conservative dem from Nebraska who will be one of the reps biggest targets in 06. My guess is they will try and run Mike Johans or Tom Osborne against him. If it's Osborne, Nelson might as well start moving his things out of his office a month or two before November. So, to try and get him so more name recognition and incentive for Nebraskans to keep him in if Osborne doesn't run and it's Johans instead.

Another name to consider is Joe Lieberman, but he's had his day in the sun. jeff Bingaman from New Mexico maybe.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou']Another name to consider is Joe Lieberman, but he's had his day in the sun. jeff Bingaman from New Mexico maybe.[/quote]
I assume you mean maybe Sen. Lieberman as Senate Minority Leader. I don't think that would be very smart for the Democrats if they intend to try to move away from the left and toward the middle. Although Sen. Lieberman is widely regarded as a Democratic moderate or conservative, here's his ratings from three different conservative organizations in comparison to Reid and Landrieu:

National Right to Life -- Lieberman, 0%; Landrieu, 55%; Reid, 55%
American Conservative Union -- Lieberman, 0%; Landrieu, 20%; Reid, 10%
Family Research Council -- Lieberman, 0%; Landrieu, 14%; Reid, 14%

Clearly, both Sen. Reid and Sen. Landrieu are more toward the middle than Sen. Lieberman, and either of them would be a wiser choice for the Democrats to target those who are voting based on moral values than Lieberman would be. The biggest appeal for Lieberman is that he appeals to Jewish voters, but some Orthodox Jews are not thrilled with him, and that could have an adverse effect on the Jewish vote for the Democrats, especially if his pro-abortion stance were to become a major issue. Many Orthodox Jews oppose abortion.

Obviously, no Catholic could vote for Lieberman under any circumstances. Reid and Landrieu, on the other hand, are debatable, especially if they were to come up against Republicans who are more pro-abortion than they are.

[Norseman82]

Just hope that Reid doesn't jettison whatever pro-life leanings he has like Gephardt did.

Ben Nelson of Nebraska - I heard he was pro-life. Any Nebraskans to confirm or deny? Raphael?

Another name I heard bantered about was Johnsonville brat Durbin of Illinois - another pro-abortion Catholic.