But they're not Communists right? You might reference the 'Light-Rail' obsession, their whore-mongering for the Plaintiff's Bar (ambulance chaser's political contributions) and that the drug-wars subsidy was just one element of Senior-scare-mongering... just my two cents.

I don't know, right off, why anyone would want to become a Democrat, but I do know that your listing applies logic to the subject and most die-hard Democrats I've encountered don't use logic. Also, most Democrats' vocabularies don't include words like "draconian" and "tacitly." None the less, you've described the actions of Democrats with accuracy and flair.

I do recognize many of my failures in thought (as a democrat) are reflected in your list. Perhaps though, this simply indicates that no solution is flawless-- but there must be some response to such questions. After all, the typical Republican response seems equally flawed. Here's what we see:

a) Let's deflect all criticism of our historical treatment of African Americans by noting that racism is no longer overt, or is only practiced by individuals. Ignore continuing racial profiling, discrimination by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae , and restructuring of pell grants to make income an even higher hurdle to those "taking control of their own lives".

b) Ignore the inability to support oneself on minimum wage (40 hr/week = $10,712/year), particularly with large corporations structuring work weeks to keep employees part time.

c) Of course, Republicans are willing to depress wages among both high tech and agricultural sectors, by supporting extensive H1-B and H2-A immigration. (Democrats settle for just undermining the bottom with their policies). Then Republicans increase the hurdles to legal immigration.

d) Of course political spoils has never been a part of politics. Republicans would never pay back energy , Halliburton , MBNA , or any other contributer.

e) Of course Republicans were the only people interested in welfare reform. The vote was nearly 4 to 1 in the House and was signed into law by who? Bill Clinton?

f) Republicans are unified on "no-child left behind". Except, of course, for Republican Governors .

g) Republicans oppose points for minorities in college admissions. But they don't challenge legacy admissions, geographical points, socio-economically disadvantaged students, or men in nursing. The points for ethnicity are much worse. Why? Well...

h) The War on Drugs is sadly bi-partisan. To ignore solutions (save lockup) seems to be predominantly Republican failing, however. Removing financial aid for drug charges, but not rape and murder seems... an ill choice of focus. Of course, if you're a Bush, the laws don't apply to you. And Reagan's ill advised reform of asset forfeiture has addicted police agencies.

i) Republicans believe the drug war should be intensified. Accordingly, they select Karen Tandy as 'Drug Czar', conflate drugs with terrorism, and ignore state initatives- raiding local growers complying with state law.

j) Oh, and they'll seize the assets of everyone 'involved' in the drug trade- and even those of people who aren't. They also threaten owners with property seizure if they don't hire off duty police officers at their own expense.

k) Republicans want to pass an expensive drug plan that doesn't solve the problem at all. But it does hand out large subsidies to drug manufacturers, so it's not without merit.

-- The response isn't very eloquent, and since it follows your format point by point, there's no grand sweep of logic as you attempt with your summation of democratic policy. But isn't it curious that it can be responded to, point by point?

Scott,

The reason that it is so easy to respond point by point to is that Republicans and Democrats really march to the same tune. To butcher a Richard Nixon quote... if that's possible... "We're all big government lovers now."

Just look at the increase in domestic discretionary spending under GW Bush.

The federal and state governments in the US are, and for the last 60 years have been, candy machines. The electorate wants more and more candy (and I mean ALL of them... rich, middle-class and poor, individuals, businesses, "non-profits") and the powers-that-be want to remain... well, the powers-that-be.

Welcome to early 21st century social democracy, American style.

Interested-Participant said:
"most die-hard Democrats I've encountered don't use logic"

Are you saying that liberalism is inherently illogical, and that if liberals learned to think better that they would no longer be liberals? If so, why is it that the smartest Republicans never seem to be able to convince the smartest Democrats to change their views, and vice versa? Given the difficulty of "tutoring" us wayward Dems in thinking better, perhaps you believe that the false and illogical rhetoric put forward by the Dems is so harmful (particular given its persuasiveness for large segments of the polity) that it should be banned?

That is the "logical" conclusion that can be drawn from your statement, which conveys an attitude and a lack of respect for those whose views you do not share that I think is corrosive to small d- democratic, civic discourse.

By the way, have you ever looked at a Yahoo message board and seen the pro-Republican, pro-Bush pro- white America ranting? Do you think these individuals to think more logically than Democrats?

Intelligent Center-Left stated in response to my statement that "most die-hard Democrats I've encountered don't use logic"

(ICL) Are you saying that liberalism is inherently illogical, and that if liberals learned to think better that they would no longer be liberals?

(IP) The answer is 'yes' to both parts of the question.

(ICL) If so, why is it that the smartest Republicans never seem to be able to convince the smartest Democrats to change their views, and vice versa?

(IP) The basis of your question is not correct. Republicans have changed Democrats and vice versa. Recently, Senator Nighthorse-Campbell of Colorado and Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from Democrat to Republican and Senator Jeffords of Vermont switched from Republican to Independent at the urging of the Democrats.

(ICL) Given the difficulty of "tutoring" us wayward Dems in thinking better, perhaps you believe that the false and illogical rhetoric put forward by the Dems is so harmful (particular given its persuasiveness for large segments of the polity) that it should be banned?

(IP) Yes, I do think false and illogical rhetoric is harmful, however, I don't think it should be banned.

(ICL) That is the "logical" conclusion that can be drawn from your statement, which conveys an attitude and a lack of respect for those whose views you do not share that I think is corrosive to small d- democratic, civic discourse.

(IP) I disagree. A "logical" conclusion to be drawn from my statement is "this guy has the wrong (or right) impression about Democrats based upon those that he has encountered." If one thinks the impression is wrong, the logical suggestion would be for me to encounter other different Democrats, such that, my impression could be revised given new information.

Also, there is no attitude intended to be conveyed nor is there a lack of respect. For example, I have encountered women who voted, and continue to vote, the Democratic Party ticket because they thought Bill Clinton was cute. I know mature and older adults who vote Democrat because "my grandparents were Democrat, my parents were Democrat, so I'm a Democrat." I get along fine with these folks.

As far as civic discourse, I know what their political views are, and they know mine. I don't think I can affect how cute Bill Clinton is nor can I change the political preferences of past generations. They are not going to get me to vote based on those criteria. What more civic discourse could there be?

(ICL) By the way, have you ever looked at a Yahoo message board and seen the pro-Republican, pro-Bush pro- white America ranting?

(IP) No.

(ICL) Do you think these individuals to think more logically than Democrats?

(IP) I don't know.

Interested Participant -- Your portraits of the reasoning of people who vote Democratic are crude caricatures. Even if they are based on quick encounters you've had with a couple or a handful of individuals, you don't know if these are the ONLY reasons that they vote Democratic, and in any case, your contacts are not a statistical sample and thus not a valid basis for judgement. As you say, "I don't know why someone would become a Democrat." Indeed, for someone who is as opposed to our false, harmful and illogical rhetoric as you claim to be, you don't seem to know your enemy very well. I'd suggest that you make a practice of reading some thoughtful liberals on a regular basis for a period of time -- for instance, Krugman and Friedman on the NY Times editorial page -- along with some thoughtful center-left magazines like The New Republic and The Washington Monthly, and a weblog such as Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, Brad DeLong's (www.j-bradford-delong.net)or DailyKos. A professor once told me I couldn't really claim to understand an issue until I could argue BOTH sides of it with authority, and advised that I should always seek to do this. I have found this to be very fruitful advice.

Markus Rose (aka Intelligent Center-Left) -- In response to my previous comment, you state the following:

Your portraits of the reasoning of people who vote Democratic are crude caricatures.

I disagree for two reasons.

(1) No "portraits of the reasoning of people" were provided by me. What I wrote was a transcription of what they told me. I did not discuss nor write about any person's reasoning, neither breadth nor depth. I merely asked a simple, yet serious question and they answered in the same vein.

(2) You state that the "portraits . . . are crude caricatures." If you think so, fine, but the comment should be more appropriately addressed to the people who actually gave me the information. I just relayed what they said.

I would agree that the term caricature could be applied but I disagree that there was any crudeness. 'Simple' might be more fitting. I'd like to think that simple caricatures do have enormous value, for is it not true that the goal of exit polls and person-on-the-street interviews is to gather simple caricatures.

Even if they are based on quick encounters you've had with a couple or a handful of individuals, you don't know if these are the ONLY reasons that they vote Democratic, and in any case, your contacts are not a statistical sample and thus not a valid basis for judgment.

This statement has three parts, which I'll address individually.

a) You are incorrectly assuming that my encounters were "quick" and encompassed "a couple or a handful of individuals." You've provided no basis for this assumption.

b) I agree with the second portion of the statement. If somebody had other reasons they voted Democrat and didn't tell me, I surely wouldn't know.

c) The last portion of your statement is misleading. First, you state that my "contacts are not a statistical sample." It wasn't intended to be nor am I trying to make it as such.

I do disagree with your contention concerning "a valid basis for judgment." I believe anything can be, in someone's mind, "a valid basis for judgment." Some people makes judgments based upon their horoscope.

Indeed, for someone who is as opposed to our false, harmful and illogical rhetoric as you claim to be, you don't seem to know your enemy very well. I'd suggest that you make a practice of reading some thoughtful liberals on a regular basis for a period of time -- for instance, Krugman and Friedman on the NY Times editorial page -- along with some thoughtful center-left magazines like The New Republic and The Washington Monthly, and a weblog such as Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, Brad DeLong's (www.j-bradford-delong.net)or DailyKos. A professor once told me I couldn't really claim to understand an issue until I could argue BOTH sides of it with authority, and advised that I should always seek to do this. I have found this to be very fruitful advice.

This last portion of your comments says to me (if I understand correctly), I don't know what I'm talking about and I should do some reading. To be honest, I'm not sure we're talking about the same things. I started this with my comment that most Democrats I've known didn't use logic in voting, which is a true statement.

Interested Participant -- You are correct, in the sense that I (Intelligent Center-Left) missed your original caveat in which you said "most hard-core Democrats I've encountered don't use logic when voting", and instead I assumed that you were simply asserting that "most hard-core Democrats do not use logic." Obviously, however, you were suggesting that your experience holds true for the much larger group of overall Democrats -- otherwise, what would be the point of bringing up your experience? I'd urge you to take steps to revise that assumption, as I think its wrong and I also think you would agree with me (or ought to) if you interacted with and read the writings of a larger sample of Democrats. I'd also urge you to take steps to observe illogical Republicans in action, such as on the Yahoo! Discussion Board that I referenced previously.

Logic in itself is never sufficient to determine political truth: for instance, it is possible to express perfectly logical reasons for and against war going to war in Iraq, even after agreeing on a mostly common set of facts on the ground. Maybe this is because a political stand is to a large extent based on a judgement of what will happen in the future, and which historical precendents, if any, are most likely to be predictive. And the level of information required to predict the future in most cases is extremely large and sometimes ungatherable. As a result, we must result on competing predictions. I note this as a way of encouraging mutual respect for reasonably well-reasoned arguments on both sides of this and most other contentious issues.

Markus Rose - Responding to your last comments (dtd. 8/6/03)

You state that in my comment "most hard-core Democrats I've encountered don't use logic when voting" is a suggestion that it "holds true for the much larger group of overall Democrats."

If there is a suggestion, it wasn't intended and I am still trying to find it. I wouldn't intentionally suggest something of that nature since I don't believe it. The fact is I suspect that "the much larger group of overall Democrats" do use logic in their decision-making. If there exists points of contention between me and "overall Democrats," it has to do with the criteria used in logically making a decision, not whether logic was used.

The last part of the first paragraph discusses the suggestion you assume I made. There was no suggestion made nor intended.

Regarding the second paragraph, I generally agree with it, however, I have no idea what "Logic in itself is never sufficient to determine political truth" means.

"The Democrats Have Made Lying Their Norm"

Posted by Gordon Bloyer

A Democrat claims that the economy is the worst since Herbert Hoover. No reporter says to that Democrat, ''That's not true.'' Why?

Reporters today have no background in history and they do no research. They seem to think when a Democrat says something it is an opinion, or just a point of view. It never crosses their mind that the Democrat is lying.

The Democrats running for president get away with saying that the president lied about the war, that we are in a recession, that unemployment is out of control, that we have the largest budget deficit in history, that budgets for safety-net programs have been cut, and that the election in 2000 was stolen. None of these statements are true--not even close--but reporters just let them slide.

Senator Joe Biden (D), Senator Joe Lieberman (D) and Senator Evan Bayh (D) have all said on national television that the president did NOT lie about the war. Why don’t reporters confront the other Democrats with their statements?

The fact is that the economy has been growing for months. A recession is when the economy is negative for three months in a row.

Bill Clinton was president from 1993 thru 2000. Unemployment was higher than the current rate in five out of the eight Clinton years. It was over 6% in three of those years. If the Democrats told the truth, they would say that we have the worst economy since Clinton. The fact is in the last six months of the Clinton years, the economy was headed down and continued that way for several months into the Bush Administration.

The deficit in dollars is the largest in history. That is meaningless. My debt is higher than ever, but it is smaller in relation to my income. It is the same for the deficit. The deficit in relation to the budget is not close to being the largest in history.

No programs have been cut. All programs have increases in their budget, just not as big as the Democrats want or dream about. Life is hard.

All recounts in Florida, including the newspaper statewide recounts, had Bush winning the election. In the Al Gore lawsuit, he never asked for a statewide recount. In the places where Gore asked for a recount the newspaper recount proved that Bush won. How did Bush steal the election?

Let me add these facts for the reporters. In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter, inflation was 13.5%, interest rates were over 18%, and unemployment was 5.8% and headed up. How is that for the worst economy since Herbert Hoover? The unemployment rate under Franklin Roosevelt was 24.9% in 1933, 21.7% in 1934, 20.1% in 1935, 16.9% in 1936, 14.3% in 1937, 19% in 1938 and 17.2% in 1939. All of these rates were higher than three out of four of the Hoover years. World War II came along and everyone went to work.

One more thing: President Bush was NEVER AWOL. Get over it.

The truth about all of the above is available by doing research. Why don’t reporters do it? They have allowed the Democratic lies to become the norm.

Gordon Bloyer