Skip to main content

View Diary: The biggest stumbling block for Republicans this fall is that they are Republicans (247 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Fairness Doctrine is obsolete (0+ / 0-)

    It only applied to broadcast media.  It did not apply to the Internet, cable TV, or satellite radio.  And I hope you wouldn't want it to extend to such (I don't want to see a front page post from Sarah Palin on this site).  Plus, if your argument is that Democrats are too moderate, couldn't the "corporate media" find a Ben Nelson-type to speak for our side?

    Plus, you are wrong about the American people.  Polling shows there are more people who refer to themselves as conservative than liberal (with moderates usually higher than both).  We need to win over a larger batch of moderates than the Reps do to win, especially since the type of people who tend to be liberal (minorities, young adults, poor people) tend to also vote less regularly.

    Pushing the party further to the left means we lose.  Sorry to make you wake up and smell the reality, but it's true.

    •  Broadcast media (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus

      is still a huge force, and the reason it needs to be regulated in favor of fairness is because the broadcast spectrum is public property, owned by the collective citizenry as a whole, and administered on our behalf by our elected government.

      I disagree with your perception of the political leanings of Americans in general. The conservative media has been making it unfashionable for thirty years to be liberal, but, again, I've seen polling that shows that when Americans are asked their position on individual topics, their answers show them to be on the liberal end of the spectrum. In any case, I could not possibly disagree more with your tired notion that we must shift backwards to win over "moderates". That's what Bill Clinton did, and look where it got us. Just imagine what our nation would look like today if FDR had acted on your advice. It is you who needs to wake up to the reality of the situation.

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 11:41:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't say bend over backwards (0+ / 0-)

        I just said keep them at the table.  And I am absolutely right about the makeup of the American people, except I understated the numbers of people who currently currently call themselves conservative:

        http://www.gallup.com/...

        Latest Gallup poll says 40% of Americans call themselves conservative or very conservative, 35% call themselves moderates, and just 21% call themselves liberal or very liberal.

        It also says only 38% of self-indetified Democrats call themselves liberal.  40% call themselves moderate, and amazingly 22% of Democrats call themselves conservative.

        You, and everybody else here, must deal with these facts.  We are the reality-based party, remember.

        •  Deal with this (0+ / 0-)

          deal with these facts.

          One does not change an unpleasant reality by accepting it. You change it by first accepting that it can be changed, and then by working to bring that change about. That is what the Republicans have been doing since 1964, and they've been very successful at it. They did not win over any Democrats or undecideds by shifting to the left, and no Progressive will ever be successful by moving backwards towards them.

          The reason too many people "identify" as conservatives has more to do with 30+ years of unrelenting anti-liberal propaganda in the corporate "liberal" media than with the reality of what words like "Liberal" and "Conservative" actually mean. Again, polling I've seen has shown that even "self-identified conservatives" line up with Liberals when specifically asked about their desire to preserve particular functions and programs of government. We don't need to go backwards to engage people--we simply need to list the facts, clearly and concisely. The Republicans are not the "Right", they are the wrong and we need to stop being so fucking shy about saying so.

          Everything they stand for--

          the wars,

          oil,

          coal,

          nuclear power,

          bigotry,

          deregulation,

          exporting jobs,

          cutting taxes for the rich,

          to name but a few, have been consistently proven to be detrimental to our nation. We don't need to give in. We need to get the message out.

          Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

          by drewfromct on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 07:38:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some of those things... (0+ / 0-)

            ...are neccessary evils, at least in the short to medium term (like oil).  Some aren't even bad, IMHO (nuclear power, for one-heck, it could be part of the solution to global warming).  Plus, there are electoral problems with being against some of those.  Being against coal means we lose West Virginia and probably Pennsylvania, for instance.

            In any case, there are a lot of social conservatives out there, with a fair amount of those people being fiscally liberal.  But these types tend to prioritize hating the gays over fiscal issues.

            •  "Necessary"? evils... (0+ / 0-)

              You need to read Lakoff, my friend. Calling something a "necessary" evil sends the signal that you're willing to accept it. I say NO. Expressing a willingness to accept our oil addiction signals that you are willing to put up with it indefinitely as opposed to working to eliminate or at least change the evil ASAP.

              Does this make any sense to you at all?

              As for social conservatives and "electoral problems", again, you miss my point by many miles. I just wish that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush had listened to someone like you back in the 70's: "Lower taxes for the rich? We can't do that--the Liberals would never let us!" And so I could go on all day. Stop whining about how unchangeable things are, because they aren't--unless you believe they are.

              Oh, and unless and until you can come up with a long-term--and I mean multi-millennial--solution to dealing with the problem of radioactive waste storage, please don't even mention nuclear power. It's a non-starter. Too expensive, not safe enough, and way too attractive as a terrorist target. Right now we need to be enacting a Green WPA that will develop, manufacture, and install enough wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal wells to break our addiction to fossil fuels while creating millions of jobs and turning the economy around in the process.

              Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

              by drewfromct on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:53:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oil is neccessary in the short to medium term (0+ / 0-)

                You can't be deluded enough to think it isn't, can you?

                Hopefully, in the long term, it won't be.

                •  Please define (0+ / 0-)

                  "medium to short term" Is that 5 years? Ten? Twenty? Thirty, maybe?

                  The wake-up call to end our oil addiction came thirty seven years ago, during the Arab embargo of 1973. If the political will to solve the problem had not been lacking then, the problem would not exist today. We wouldn't be at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the air would be cleaner, we'd all be richer, and we'd be eating clean, fresh Gulf of Mexico shrimp. The sad, sorry, scenario we see before us today is the result of that lack of political will to overcome the entrenched interests of the oilmen and their partners in crime in the MIC who personally profit from the endless oil wars.

                  You simply do not seem to grasp the desperate urgency behind our need to replace dirty, non-renewable fossil fuels with clean sustainable energy. We need an alternative energy program on a scale and speed that dwarfs that of the Manhattan and Apollo Programs combined, and we need it literally yesterday.

                  Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

                  by drewfromct on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 07:26:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Solving it requires technology, not poltics (0+ / 0-)

                    37 years ago, it was not technically possible to replace oil.  Today, it might almost be possible to reduce it somewhat.  But we are still a long ways technically to replacing oil.  Basically, we need a clean source of energy that is almost as cheap as oil (with taxes and governmental incentives pushing it over the top).  That probably won't occur for several decades, if ever.

                    •  The technology (0+ / 0-)

                      is here, now. What is lacking is the political will to end the generous multi billion dollar subsidies to
                      fossil duels and nukes, and put all our financial, intellectual, and political capital into sustainable energy right now. Again, if this nation had done what needed to be done in 1974, we would not have the problems we do today.

                      You seem to neglect the fact that if all the externalized costs of fossil fuel use (mainly pollution and wars) were added to the price at the pump, wind and solar are already less expensive.

                      We can't afford to wait any longer.

                      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

                      by drewfromct on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:36:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You are wrong (0+ / 0-)

                        Here is a complete list of non-oil powered airplanes:

                        1. [none exist]

                        Here is a complete list of non-oil powered cargo ships:

                        1. [none exist]

                        Here is a complete list of non-oil powered big rigs:

                        1. [none exist]

                        Here is a complete list of non-oil powered passenger vehicles that can be driven on a long road trip without stopping:

                        1. [none exist]
                        •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                          It is you who are wrong.

                          Aircraft can be fueled on both hydrogen and biodiesel. Please don't try to weasel and say that none currently are, because the fact is that they can be.

                          Ever heard of sailing ships? They existed for thousands of years before the oil era. There is technology in development to use large kites to help power ships.

                          Any oil-fueled engine, be it on a ship, plane, truck, or passenger car can be potentially powered by Hydrogen or Biodiesel, and Hydrogen can be derived from electricity generated by sun, wind, water, or waves. The technology exists. The reasons why it has not been fully developed are purely economical-political.

                          Your whiny nay-saying might be helpful to the oilmen, but it's not winning you any friends here.

                          Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

                          by drewfromct on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 03:34:05 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, and as for the Fairness Doctrine... (0+ / 0-)

        ...it might apply to talk radio (except sattlite radio), but it wouldn't apply to the main source of right-wing misinformation, Fox News.  At all.

        •  That's a tired old argument (0+ / 0-)

          and it simply does not wash, because unless Rupert Murdoch has a hard wire running from the Earth to orbiting satellites, cable tv makes use of the publicly owned broadcast spectrum to transmit their signals. And saying that new technology can't be regulated is simply laughable.

          Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

          by drewfromct on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 01:56:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site