The last two "moderate" Democratic nominees have gone hard left since their defeats.  

Gore was once a pro-life Democrat in the Senate.  He ran as a "moderate" for president while being challenged by the left by Bradley.  He's now as hard left and angry as they come.  Warning of impending doomsday and sweating himself silly.

Kerry's Iraq "plan" was the same as Bush's with the word "allies" thrown in.  He fought off Dean and Kucinich and their idea of a pull out.  He is now the Senate's biggest proponent of a complete withdrawl.  His ammendment stated all troops out within a year.

The question(s) is:  Have these guys always been hard left liberals posing(lying) as moderates?  Or are they putting on an act now to appease their looney base?  Or do they really have no convictions at all other than they want to be President?

Whatever the answer, I'm willing to bet a year's pay that after moderate Hillary loses in 08 she will go harder left than these last two yokels.

First of all, the conservative party is the one of R-A-G-E (that's why people listen to Michael Savage, & that is why Ann "COPYCAT" Coulter (she's not even bright enough to be a creative hatemonger) sells "plagiarized filled" books...

And you want to talk about angry right politcians, look no further than Ted Stevens (Alaska), Tom Coburn (OK), Rick Santorum (PA), & the list goes on...

"Or are they putting on an act now to appease their looney base?"

Come on, GW is the master of this...He often meets with the far-right religious lunatics, who were instrumental in having Harriet Myers withdraw her nomination from the Supreme Court...And of course, who could forget the "this is a group of the haves & have mores, some call you elitists, I call you my base"    speech...

-- Modified on 7/9/2006 12:37:31 PM

Of all the Democrats Kucinich was the only one who had balls.  You knew he believed what he said.  And the fact that W and company saw Iraq as the biggest threat after 9-11 proves they are incompetent jackasses.  Neither party is worthy of leading this nation or the world in the new century.

issues that are a full 5 paragraphs, but I wouldn't be so glib about Kerry's Iraq plan.   Allies or not can make all the difference in the world - eg, imagine if the Turks were behind us in Iraq.  Imagine if the entire region were agreed on a solution, possibly because they had bought into it.

2ndly, notice Murtha's POV.   I realize that Murtha, as a Democrat and officer in combat, could not possibly know as much about the subject as yourself, let alone Ann Coulter; but it's entirely reasonable to take the view that (1) we needed to take out Saddam, but that was the extent of the military mission; and (2) hanging around afterward was inviting trouble.   That seems to be Murtha's view.

I differ with Murtha, in that I see no sense in going to a lot of trouble unless you are reasonably assured of a profitable outcome.  No, I do not see foreign relations and war as a matter of principle; when people risk their lives, I want to see definite benefit to the nation.

So I opposed the war from the beginning for a couple of reasons - 1st, I doubted that we would get a profitable outcome, because I did not see how we could, by our own military force, get to a more stable or beneficial result in Iraq; 2ndly, I regarded it as a serious diversion and compromise from chasing al Qaeda; and 3rd, I was convinced that Dubya was not interested in selling anybody on this war, because he simply did not put forth any serious arguments, limiting himself to associating all ragheads.  So the issue is not so much the wisdom of involvement in Iraq, as Bush using the situation to concentrate executive power by panicking the nation.

Of course, he could still pull it out, but the question is, how many years does anybody think it will take, and what exactly is "pulling it out"?  Does anybody think the mideast is going to be more stable in 5 years because of our intervention?  Yes, we will have saved a lot of Iraqis, at the cost of how much American blood and money?  And do we owe these Iraqis before we owe our own?  Sorry, I don't think so.

I was hoping someone else could lend insight into these powerful Democrats moving left now that their shot at becoming pres. is pretty much caput.  

As for the replies I did receive:

Moose-  You seem like a nice enough guy but I don't get this "Republicans are mean" thing.  First, you bring up DJs and writers. Do you actually listen to them or read their stuff?

Is there anyone nastier than Howard Dean?  Why do you think the Dems decided he was "unelectable"?  Have you ever listened to the things Senator Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer, etc. say on the Senate floor every day?  They are a vile bunch.  Have you ever been around two men more unpleasant than Carville and Begala?  You know about McKinney hitting the cop.  Do you know when she lost her seat in 2002 she blamed it on the "J-E-W-S" in her speech?  How about "Borking" people?  They try to literally destroy everybody they don't agree with. And they were real nice to Katherine Harris and Linda Tripp.  Making fun of their appearance.  Very sweet.  There is no comparison between the two parties.  And don't get me going with your "elitist" comment.  Democrats call everybody "stupid" who disagree with them.  If you haven't noticed they don't exactly connect with the common man.  

Nocstradamus and Vodka-  Why not vote for alternative candidates?  They don't have to win elections to have influence.  That won't ever happen if everyone holds their nose and votes for candidates they don't believe in.

How sad is that?

Is this your "cut and paste" reply to everything or do you actually read the post first?

"A disaster on everything". Very compelling argument.  Didn't the Democrats use that same argumet in 2004 and lose the presidential election as well as four additional Senate seats(How sad was that)?  You must be Nancy Pelosi's campaign manager.  

You sir, are a deep thinker.  And I see no evidence of you devolving into an angry, looney lib.  Your arguments with "BlameAmericaFirst" have also been very impressive.  You are a man in control of his emotions at the present time.

-- Modified on 7/9/2006 8:45:32 PM

a hard leftist to oppose an unnecessary war? Were the Republicans leftists when they opposed Clinton's foray into Bosnia? And the amazing thing is that you consider "looney" anyone who does not want occupy Iraq for all eternity. Try looking in the mirror to find out who is "looney." Considering that your opinion is in the bottom 30% of U.S. opinion, I have to ask, "Why do you hate America so much?"

So Kerry is a leftist by advocating troop withdrawls from Iraq.... does this mean that Rep. Murtha is a leftist?  What about General Casey, the top US commander in Iraq? They're both advocating US troop withdrawls so I guess in BushWorld General Casey is a leftist.

This is more than just the war.  Do I really need to go through all of Gore's sweat stained antics over the last 6 years?  Do you remember who he used to be?  At this point, the only difference between Gore and some guy on a sidewalk holding "The end is near" sign is that Gore wears a suit while he does it.  BTW, if we used nuclear power (like france, Japan, etc.) this whole conservation movement would be moot.  Why doesn't he bring that up?  Because Jane Fonda would disapprove.  Oh yea, I take him seriously.

Kerry's done another 180.  I don't dare use that "sandal" word.  So 18 months later he has a total different strategy. He went from mocking Dean to going further left of him.  I wonder why?  BTW, keep bringing up polls of 1,500 people to guage the country.  Every two years they have a poll where "one person = one person" and that seems to be the only time the Republicans do well.

Again, the question was why are they going left?  Were they full of shit then or full of shit now?  Either way you guys should be proud they are two of the most powerful members of your party.

can you have enough of a warped imagination to blame the candidates who lost the last two Presidential elections for the nation's ills.

it would be great if the rightwingers could get at least halfway into an issue without resorting to calling names.   Not that there's anything wrong with that, understand; it's just that it's the end of logic or negotiation.   So when that happens, you have to expect that other parties will respond in kind.

I understand that the right is scared by the looney left.  The rest of that is, (a) they're scared of their own shadows - John Wayne could be president, and they'd be scared; and (b) they're controlling the country.   So who do they have to blame?  The NY Times, because they notice that the administration isn't delivering?  Yeah, that must be it.

Actually, I have never heard a leftwinger or for that matter, the self proclaimed independents, articulate a strategy in dealing with Islamo-facism.  Most are stuck on the mantra that "Bush lied and people died".   For the critics who advocate removing troops immediately, perhaps it would be good  to hear a coherent response to the following questions.
Will the Islamo-facists (wahabi Islam and Shiite extremists) be stronger or weaker with our departure from Iraq?
What is the message sent to other future adversaries about our resolve as a nation?
What is the "liberal" plan to defeat Islamo-facists (Perhaps a few specifics would be nice other than nice sounding generalities like "a smarter approach" or "a unified approach with our allies")
It would be great to hear a coherent response to these questions that never seem to be asked of the great patriotic liberal leaders.  


"I know it's impossible to get a rightwinger to consider issues that are a full 5 paragraphs"

Since you have such a grasp on the situation, you might want to read a great book called
"War in the shadows" by Robert Asprey.  It might give you some good insights about successful and unsuccessful counterinsurgency warfare throughout history.  It might even open your eyes to something other than the heady days of burnign ROTC buildings to protest Viet Nam. Of course, as a conservative, I could not get past the first 3 paragraphs and there really aren't too many pictures. but you can explain it to me later Jack.

original post talks about the "War" and then you concede my point that you are wrong about the "War" and then go back to crying about about swinging to the "left" in regards to the "War." Pretty soon you will say, "I know you are but what am I?" Your debating skills are testament to why there is no debate center in Kindergarten.

What exactly was my concession?  I wanted to know why your last two #1s have gone left and I gave numerous examples.  I didn't want this to be another Iraq debate, but what I actually posted.  But Jeremy, that required a little more focus that your capable of. The concept of answering a question directly can be difficult for some (at least you).

Debating skils??  I'm taking on this whole board by myself and it isn't even close.  Once again, if I continued to prove myself as inarticulate and uncreative as you, I would continue to hide behind an alias as well.

"This is more than just the war.  Do I really need to go through all of Gore's sweat stained antics over the last 6 years?" Sorry but that sounds like a concession regarding the war. Again I ask

Since when has it meant being a hard leftist to oppose an unnecessary war?

"but I don't get this "Republicans are mean" thing."

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one..And yes, I know some democrats can be mean to, but I still don't think so on the level of republicans..I've heard (& seen the transcripts) more than I care to of Ann, Michael S., etc..The thing about Ann that is baffling to me is that she NEVER is civil, it's endless name-calling, there's no substance at all to her.. She never, ever debates anyone, just name-calls..

"How about "Borking" people? They try to literally destroy everybody they don't agree with"..

Remember, 7 or 8 (can't remember which it was) REPUBLICAN senators voted against Bork to, the Dems. didn't defeat him single-handily...

"And they were real nice to Katherine Harris and Linda Tripp. Making fun of their appearance."

I know SNL had fun w/these two, but not sure which democratic politicans/pundits poked fun at them..

"If you haven't noticed they don't exactly connect with the common man."

Using 2004 election totals, Dems connect with about 48% of people, republicans connect with about 51%...As I've harped on before, just because Bush won alot of areas in terms of square mileage, doesn't mean the country is turning red...But given all the things that have happened since the last election, I think it's the republicans who aren't going to be connecting w/voters come November..

"Going left" means they moved left from their original stance.  Not your stance, but the stance that they took.  They have moved left of how they both represented themselves while running for president. I understand that "left" and "right" can be a relative term.  They may not have moved left of you, but they have moved left of who they  were as presidential candidates.  I am not accusing Dean of moving "left", because he has been consistent. I don't know how much more I can explain this. (This dead horse is officially beaten)

I've clearly documented Kerry.  He voted for it.  Ran for president attacking Dean for wanting to pull out. He called it "irresponsible". Spoke in debates about a "plan" that mirrored Bush's. Now he is pushing harder than anyone for a withdrawl 18 months later.  He has offered no reconciliation.  No one has bothered to ask him for it because he has been thrown on the scrap heap of "2nd place". That is the way politics works.  If he runs for president again they will blast him for it.

I've really documented Gore and his doomsday speeches and his anger.  Look back at his record in the Senate and as a VP.  Review his speeches on Iraq when Clinton was bombing them. He picked a moderate as his running mate and then totally abandoned him.  Has Lieberman changed, or has Gore? Again, his only Democratic challenger was Bradley who challenged him from the left.  If he ran for president again could anyone possibly go left of him this time?

I'm not calling him a "leftist".  I asked why he and Gore have moved left.  Why is this so difficult to understand??  This guy was almost president and he's contradicting what he said as a candidate even though circumstances haven't really changed.  Do you find his duplicity even a little disturbing?

You have absolutely no clue about politics. You do not know the meaning of right and left. For you, left means anyone who disagrees with Bush. You would have had much success in Stalin's Russia. Peace, comrade.

your premise is stupid. Gore was always against the war and was always an environmentalist, so you have your head up your ass on that one. And as for Kerry, circumstances haven't changed? Let's see, Iraq is now officially a clusterfuck. If Iraq is the conservative ideal of freedom and democracy, I fear for my children.

I needed to re-ask the question five times before you started to grasp the concept.  And your responses have really opened the doors of enlightenment to me. You are a deep guy.  Trying to engage you in a dialogue was a very rewarding experience.  You bring so much to the table. Thank goodness you post your thoughtful insights on this board.  We are truly lucky. I can only hope that some of your wisdom has rubbed off on me.  Gosh, you are smart.

You are too dumb to ever see the light. Next time ask your loaded strawman question to Rush. It only works with rightwing idiots clucking amongst themselves.