A modest proposal: forget about Bush!

[placton]

Perhaps the most common critique of military minds is that they are fixated on the last war. That's one reason the Japanese lost WWII: they sunk obsolete battleships, instead of the carriers which defeated them at Midway.

George Bush is history. He's a lame duck. It makes little sense to rail against him. Either he will do as well as the idiots who elected him believe, or he will (as we believe) screw the pooch in every imaginable way. Either way, there is little we can do about it.

But he will never run for office again. Praise Jesus.

We need to concentrate on the next war. We have one thing that we can use to our advantage: we are smarter than the opposition. Now we need to use our brains to discern what's gonna happen in the future. We have a lotta lessons about what NOT to do from previous Dem campaigns.

First, we need a national program for candidates to run on in '06 and '08. One with lotsa stuff like these:
-ballot initiatives
-to increase the minimum wage (Florida just passed one)
-to bar doctors successfully sued for malpractice 3 times from practicing medicine (ditto on Florida)
-term limits on judges (there are lotsa state court ultra right wingers who need to go)

-a national balanced budget amendment (hey, it'll never pass now, the GOOP-ers can't afford to do it - and we look great)

-a national "freedom of religion amendment" (I'll let others write it - but it just SOUNDS so good) - let's even repeal the requirement that churches can't preach politics and still be tax exempt! The wingers will do it anyhow, but my local United Methodist congregation should be able to get into the game.

-legislation to reduce the number of abortions by setting up a national adoption agency (you say, where will the $$ come from if we pass a balanced budget amendment? don't worry about it - it's these ideas that count, not whether they will ever pass)

I am sure we can come up with lotsa stuff. If Bush and Rove can sell the crap they have for the last 4 years, why not us?

The point is: let's go after who will run in the future. Sure, we need to criticize Repukes, and demonstrate they lied. But we will get news coverage up the wazoo with stuff like this - the media loves these kinds of irrelevant battles.

So, let's see if we can't win the NEXT war, rather than re-fighting one we lost. Any ideas?

[seraph]

1. Can we just ignore him?

Maybe he'll just leave.


(just kidding)

[Sleepless In NY]

3. seraph lol

the way he takes vacations..he's never really "here" anyway, is he? lol

[seraph]

6. Kind of the way I see it.

:evilgrin:

[Parche]

2. battle

I say we bring in Fleet Admiral Halsey to give the Republicans HELL!!!

Then we can win



We need to get a sponsor for a paper ballot bill in the US
no more electronic voting machines

[placton]

4. precisely

but we need a sexy name like: "The protect the vote from Osama's computer warriors Act"

[Sleepless In NY]

10. placton a Modest Proposal? reminds me of Jonathan Swift

No, I'm not going to suggest we eat republicans, ie Swifts proposal, either, lol. But I do think the democrats should start playing hardball with bush. Republicans sure did it with Clinton. Forget this "healing" ( or is it..heeling?) with republicans. Dems need to grow a spine..and when someone calls you a "girlie man" or a "loser" tell them to F*** off & you're not working with them till they apologize. Sure didn't hurt Cheney, did it? Dems need to unite & frustrate the hell out of bush. Dont approve his judical appointments. Fight drilling in the Artic. Call for the Red States to start paying their fair share of the tax burden. Lots they can do to minimize bush's legacy.

As for candidates, well, Gore was southern, he couldnt carry his own state and neither could Edwards. Kerry's a northerner and he couldn't do it. Like Hillary, but lets face it, that would finish us off completely. My favorite was and will always be Wesley Clark. Don't think we should go overboard trying to appeal to Red States either, think we should start reminding them where this country was founded and just who has the highest divorce rates. They might need "saving" but the rest of us sure dont. And they should be held responsible for their fair share of paying off bush's debt. Let them act like the "Patriots" they claim to be. If soldiers can sacrifice their lives, Red states should be called on to make some sacrifices of their own.

[placton]

11. sleepless, I agree totally

We need to come out of the box fighting all the way. I suggest, though, that we need some issues (fake though they may be) to put the GOP on the defensive.

[kvining]

13. Agree

I have a major battle going on at a Mercedes Benz car forum, a place where I find lots of Republicans to kick ass on. Shortly after the election they tried to have me banned. Interesting reading if you want to see a real fight. We need to take the battle to where the enemy is and FIGHT:

http://www.benzworld.org/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1191214&posts=115&fid=46

http://www.benzworld.org/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1191175&start=1&fid=46

[kvining]

5. We need to organize to fight state issues

The next round of elections will be in the States. We need to organize our issues based on local rather than national issues.

[BJ]

7. An amendment for a nationally unified voting system.

The U.S. is the only modern state without a single, verifiable national ballot casting and counting system. After the inconsistency in gathering voter information in especially this election and 2000, an open, honest national system is called for.

BTW, we do have a "freedom of religion amendment". It is called the First Amendment."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And as I re-read your list of proposals some sound vaguely reactionary (i.e "legislation to reduce the number of abortions by setting up a national adoption agency".) We don't need to continue moving to the right, thank you. I hope you're just kidding on some of these.

[placton]

9. Here's the deal

1. No one is gonna do squat about winger churches being GOP outposts - why not make sure liberal churches feel free to do the same?
2. The adoption plan is for real: let's give women that alternative; abortion needs to be legal, I agree, but let's make the wingers put their money where their mouths are - by adopting kids who are not cute lil white kids (I am an adoptive parent, and thank God I had the opportunity)

The point is: we need to take GOP issues, and show we have better alternatives. I see none of my modest suggestions as reactionary.

[BJ]

14. In answer to your first question

..."why not make sure liberal churches feel free to do the same?"

They won't. From the Saturday Nov. 6 edition of The Des Moines Register

The Rev. Mark Stringer began preaching about unity Sunday.

"One of the most important things that has to happen, regardless of who wins, is we have to get back the sense that we are all in this mess together," said Stringer, pastor for First Unitarian Church in Des Moines.
(-snip-)
"Throughout this campaign, religion has been used too often as a strategy rather than as a positive, guiding light," said the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance.

He criticized both presidential candidates for using churches to spread their messages: Kerry spent the five Sundays before Election Day in various black churches and Bush strategists targeted and delivered some 4 million votes from evangelical Christians.
(-snip-)

And in answer to your second opinion: I've witnessed more than one Christian Reconstructionist family with children of other races than Caucasian. Furthermore what in your proposal is there to prevent the now common practice to adapting children from Russia and Romania?

[meti57b]

8. Balanced Budget Amendment ... EXCELLENT!! ... true it won't pass, but

it will give us the opportunity to screw with conservatives' "minds", (assuming they have any).

Intelligence is sort of a time-sensitive thing, though. republicans have been doing intelligent things, building their party and resources, including buying up the media, for decades now. We have only just now started with moveon.org, ACT, AAR Radio.

In the spirit of "forget george bush", ... you are right!! I suggest figuring out what we can gain in 2006.

[kayell]

12. You are making some basic, and what with any other president

would seem like reasonable assumptions. In this case those assumptions may not be valid.

WILL we have another election? - Yes probably. The appearance of democracy means a lot to the repukes, even if democracy itself means nothing. Their version of totalitarianism will be covered nicely be PR specialists.

WILL it be any where close to a legitimate election? That seems a lot less likely unless we can do something about voter suppression, BBV and other voting irregularities.

WILL congress pass a repeal to the 22nd Amendment? - a hard one to pass without stipulating that it doesn't apply to the current office holder, but has been talked about.

WILL * use any normal human restraint in what he goes after in the next 4 years, knowing that he has nothing to lose? - This is the BIG one after the vote issues. I shudder to contemplate what he has in mind, now that he imagines a mandate, especially considering the way he kept his promises to be bi-partisan and uniting after the last election.