Why didn't Democrats pick a moderate to run against Bush?
346818
Kerry isn't far left.  You're just so far right that he looks further away.
732460
Not when the choice was Bush or Kerry. I mean, come on, Kerry as president. That gives me the willies.
531221
Because the alternative was Al Gore, John Kerry and even Ralph Nader. You pick the lesser of the evil.
880098
Neither one as neither could win.  Democrats need to stop running sacrificial lambs for President.  Democrats have shown a marked tendency to offer candidates that have, at best, a marginal chance of gaining majority support, and then they are managed by unbelieveably inept strategists, ala Gore and Kerry campaign handlers.  They must pick someone of substance who will be able to stand up to the heat of a campaign, and not look wimpy next to the likes of John McCain.
827209
becuase the first thing the new democratic house and senate would have done would have been to fire him. i think\n1. to beat them to it\n2. to make bush look better...like he wants to work with the house and senate
767192
Iraq-didnt the Dems vote for it too and proudly, especially Kerry.  This is a stupid question.  Is there a law to prevent a lying, soldier-bashing person from running from pres?  no.   Why would Dems want to impeach Bush?  Do like Cheney that much-ha.
33718
You dont know how sure i was that the Democrat was going to get in last term...  I mean everywhere I looked, people hated Bush...  You coulve run anyone, and they shouldve beat thim..\n\nSo in short, I dont know, but I doubt it.  Especially with the candidates they are hinting at now..  No sexism or racism intended, but the only Democrat who has a chance in hell of winning is a straight white male.  Yes there are qualified candidates outside of that group, but the US is not ready for them...  Democrats run anyone else and you will see a huge landslide victory for the Republicans.
830653
Quite the contrary... The dems that were trotted out to run against the most liberal of the republicans were far closer to the center, more "conservative" tha the RINO's they ran against. The far left of the dems would not have been able to pull of the upsets that these moderates accomplished. I doubt you'll see major changes in taxes, Iraq, etc. right away. They know that that a lot of people did not vote for them for what they stood for, but just against what they perceived the republicans had become.. corrupt, immoral, big government, tax breaks for the rich & big business and war mongerers. The dems know if they screw it up, the republicans will be back!
827383
Look at liberman. The democrats didn't support him. He ran as an independent and took the senate. \nPlus you have to remember they go into primaries to see who gets in for their party.
329645
George W. Bush ran against Al Gore not Clinton, you idiot.
944332
I'm not afraid of voting for the right candidate. The problem is all the media on rep. & dem. and hardly on any other party that is out there. I usually don't know what the other parties' candidates stand for becaue that information is not easy to find.
861395
Republicans hold Democrats to a higher standard than even the head of the Republican Party, George W. Bush.\n\nGeorge Bush's lack of exit strategy or any strategy at all for Iraq doesn't bother his followers at all.\n\nAt the same time they demand that the Democrats outline their strategy for Iraq in detailed terms.
272357
As fair disclosure, I'm probably somewhere considerably to the left of moderate.\n\nFor me, it's not the party that matters as much as the person's motivation for having that political philosophy.  Any conservative who is a conservative purely because of their religion or their heritage is a lost cause.  So is any liberal who only hates Bush because they think it's cool, since they heard that Green Day does it too.\n\nHowever, if someone has formed their views by studying the issues first-hand, thinking about their own system of values, and researching the tenets that their country (the U.S., in my case) were built on, then they will probably be able to discuss politics pretty rationally.
687242
he would have been a thousand times better than Bush. I don't see any democrat that can top Kerry these times, even if I admit it's not a perfect candidate. anyway, I still back Kerry, he would have been a great president I think
981708
The political process in this country has been locked down in favor of the two parties for a long time.  The road for a third party would be extremely difficult.  First, the democrats would have to fail miserably in the next couple of years for there to be any movement to a third party.  Then, the public would have to organize massively in their discontent around another grouping and put the weight of their numbers behind it.  If that were to happen, then a third party might be viable.  But not without great numbers of people supporting it.
684071
I'll first say that I don't designate myself as a Democrat or Republican, although I do tend to take the side of the Democrats more often.\n\nThe reason, though, that Democrats can't win the White House is that they don't have a solid stance on ANYTHING.  They simply take what the conservatives say (which is always swayed to the right) and try to find a middle ground or happy medium...rather than stating firmly what they believe in.  Democrats are so scared to lose that small part of the conservative vote that they fail to uphold solid beliefs on any topic.\n\nIf I were a Democrat running in the next election, there are two major things I would focus on:\n\n1) The failures of the Republican administration over the past 8 years.\n2) The environment and global warming.\n\nThese are two things that SHOULD be the goals of the liberals.....both correcting the mistakes of the conservatives (war, hurricane relief, taxes, health care) and concentrating on easing global warming by moving to alternative fuels, thus lowering gas costs, etc.  In addition, regarding issues brought forth in the last election like abortion, stem cell research, and gay rights.....TAKE A STAND!!!!  The "flip-flopper" term was thrown around because there's no solid opinion of the party as a whole.  It's always a politician's answer that never resolves the initial question.\n\nSo that's all.  Hope that made sense.  And by the way...making up your mind before hearing the issue makes you a complete moron.  Just because you're the "member of a party" does NOT mean you have to agree with everything the party says.  Partisan politics are for the mindless.
837820
George W is the pres. of the US, right?  The demcrats you are referring to primarily are the politicians that are also involved in the same line of work.  If these are the democrats that you are referring to, then, you surely know the answer, don't you?  Nothing gets done either way if the president and his staff do not communicate and try to work out some sort of solution about their disagreements.  That is the #1 reason why. There are many more, but perhaps that will answer what you needed to know.