now that the republicans pretty much control everything, the democrats are in a serious need of a facelift... if they couldnt take bush's record over the past 4 years and get him out of office, then to be quite frank, the democrats are fucked... and bitching and moaning over ohio or wherever will do absolutely no good (just look at FLA and '00)... the election is over and the republicans control it all...

im drawing the conclusion also that the hollywood interest in this election may have only hurt the democrats... where the dems rose up, it appears the republicans rose up even stronger...

there is a serious need for change in the dem party... and i think my dad (who i rarely agree with) might have hit it on the head in his email to me this morning... dont be offended anyone, it's just an old conservatives view:

"Democrats need to go back to their roots and lose the super lib factor, the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharptons, the Hollywood nutjobs. They are too
extreme to the left."

even if the democratic party isnt to the extreme left, they appear that way to a large portion of the general public... and the republicans have helped shape this image, but standing side-by-side with actors and rockstars hasnt helped the democratic case, imo

what will happen? what can happen? what do you think should happen?

The inverse of this happened, but in the 50's and 60's, to the Republican party. They went back and examined what made them Republicans. The Democrats need to do something similar. Moving towards the center will help, and losing douchebags like Daschle helps also. A STRONG moderate voice as the leader of your party is the key. Which means no more Kennedys......

I am what would be considered a "massachusetts liberal"...

I am for the death penalty

I am for conservative gov't spending

I am pro-choice but would never have an abortion myself

I am for the use of force when force is necessry

I have a republican governor who I think is doing a pretty good job

I had a dem state senate leader that just resigned, and I am glad because he sucked

I think Clinton is a natural leader but was a lousy president

I would have voted for John McCain over Al Gore in 2000

How much more moderate do I have to be to "convince" the conservatives that I am not going commie on their asses?

The religious right has just taken over the country. And that's why the democrats can't catch a break.

My question is, what part of "separation of church and state" do these religious right politicians NOT UNDERSTAND?

Third parties are next. Seriously, we need to start campaigning them NOW!

I hope, with the next election the more level headed people of the USA will decide that they are fed up with these polarizing political figures pandering to their beliefs and they will vote for moderate canadates.

I personally hope for as much economic and social liberty as possible.

I'd love to have a canidate that is economically conservative and all for getting the government out of our social lives.

I find it absolutely amazing that, throughout all of the hate-mongering, Bush received the most votes in history and is the first candidate to hold over 50% of the electorate since his father in 1988. If the Democrats couldn't beat Bush on his record when the econony is this bad, the war is unpopular and there are that many people that hate Bush, they need to start re-evaluating themselves. The fact they lost seats in the Senate and House says a lot.



Perhaps Hollywood and entertainment will start to realize that they do not represent the electorate. They do not speak for the majority of Americans. And they are not the one to be claiming the moral highground when it comes to politics and social issues.



The number one identified issue this election was morals, with 80% of those identifying that issue voting for Bush. James Carville admitted last night that the Democrats need to look in the mirror and find out how to appeal to the South and middle-belt states. Their stances on such things as abortion, affirmative action, gay/lesbian rights, etc. just do not lend themselves to appealing to these states. The problem for the Democrats is that without these states, they cannot win. The days of the Southern Democrat are over.

So, basically, the Democrats have to go against the things they've believed in for years, and pander to the religious right to get elected. Sounds like a lose/lose situation to me.

Well, one thing about hollywood, it's not like they are prevented from putting there money where their mouth is. Pearl Jam donates all kinds of cash for various funds.

Why can't Ashton Kucher or Keanu Reeves open a 20 million dollar community center?

Why don't they take all that cash they make in the movies buy up real estate and build houses for homeless people?

With great power (wealth) comes great responsibility?

Ok, so INDIVIDUAL insanely wealthy people, put your money where your mouth is.

Why do we need the government to force you to do it? Just do it because it's the right thing to do?

Look at Andrew Carnagie. "He who dies rich dies poorly"

Ok folks, begin with your philanthropy.

Care about the arts? Give them money.

Well, unless you hope that there's a complete cultural shift in the south, you have to re-evaluate how you apply those important issues.

I don't think Democrats have to necessarily do a complete 180 on all the issues, but they do have to re-define how they plan on executing their core values.

For instance, Clinton did just that in 1996 with the Welfare Reform Bill. He took an issue that widely unpopular among conservative and independent voters (increasing welfare rolls) and pigeonholed it into the Democratic ideology of helping the poor and downtrodden. He convinced people that passing welfare reform was actually good for the poor by providing the motivation to seek work and break the long lines of dependence on the system. It was brilliant, and it worked. The Democrats did not have to give up an issue that was very near and dear to them, yet they were able to satisfy those against welfare dependence.

An issue today that the Democrats could change their stance on is partial-birth abortion. For the most part, most Democrats concede they are against this practice. However, there is no way they will ever vote to ban it because of their stance on abortion overall. They need to move on it.

I'm sorry. You're not grasping that amendment for it's purpose: To keep State from establishing or removing religion.

Please read up on your constitutional law. Specifically the Lemon ruling:

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Supreme Court articulated a three-part test to determine whether a statute violates the Establishment Clause. A statute (1) “must have a secular legislative purpose,â€

couldn't agree more. its always been my standing not to look to rock stars or movie stars for their political advice. and the same goes for the flip-side: if george bush released a cd, i wouldn't even go near it.