Posted on 10/16/2003 5:01:48 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
If you are a Democrat, then this column is for you. If you are reading this and hoping one of the Democratic candidates can win the 2004 presidential election and unseat George W. Bush then yes you need to read this column.
Even if you are holding out hope Hillary will throw her hat in the ring and sweep to the White House you need to read this column. You need to read this and realize this fact. The Democratic candidate will lose next year. No matter who it is. Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, even the crown jewel of the left, Hillary Clinton, will not be sworn in in January, 2005.
Why can such a rash and bold prediction be made? How can I be so certain of a Democratic loss? Well there are several reasons for the confidence that President Bush will win re-election in November 2004.
First of all is the economy, it is getting better. Yes, yes it is indeed improving, and has been for a while now. Despite the cries from the Democrats about how desperately bad our economy is, and despite their deeply held desire for the economy to get worse, it is getting better.
Face some facts here. The president, no matter the party, really does not control the economy, we do, but many Americans place either the credit or the blame for our economic state on the president’s head. And with increasingly good news about our economy, the president, in this case George W. Bush, will increasingly get credit. This is not promising news for the Democratic wannabes.
Secondly is the current war on terror. Despite the whining and carping from the Democrats America is indeed winning the war. Al Quaida has been grievously wounded with most of its leadership now dead or captured. Saddam Hussein is gone from power in Iraq and that nation is being rebuilt. Again despite the negative press our efforts in Iraq are moving along and improving the conditions there on a daily basis.
Now the Democratic candidates surely does not want us to understand what is really happening in Iraq schools are running, Iraqi police are now enforcing law and order, water and power are up and running. Saddam’s sons are dead and the people he terrorized are now free. And the really bad news for the Democrats is this; a recent poll showed two-thirds of Iraqis see a brighter future now.
All of this is very bad news for any Democratic candidate. And this is the third reason Bush will win in 2004. Sad as it is to say, good news for our economy, good news for our troops, good news in the war on terror, is all bad news for the Democrats. The Democratic Party is about negatives, not positives. They have become a party of pessimism, and a party, which puts America’s interest below their need for power.
Now for the final reason the Democrats are doomed to fall on their faces in 2004. Their party and yours if you are a Democrat, have ceased to be a party with any message. Instead the Democratic Party is now a party which just attacks Republicans, demonizes it’s opponents, and tries to scare people into voting for their candidates.
Listen to the message from the candidates for President. There are no plans for helping America or fixing any of its problems. Instead all we hear are the same tired big spending, big taxing, race baiting, Republican bashing, rhetoric we have been hearing for years now.
A political party, which is completely devoid of any message or plans, is going to fail miserably. And certainly this describes the current state of the Democratic Party in America.
Take a look back at the Democratic presidential debates. All we have gotten out of these is Bush-bashing, lies, distortions of facts, and cries against taxes for the rich. How long are the Democrats going to hold on to this tax cuts for the rich fallacy? Or for that matter, how long are they going to beat the dead horses they always beat?
The candidates have shown their lack of ideas repeatedly in their speeches and debates. John Kerry can only keep reminding everyone who will listen that he served in Vietnam ignoring the fact he has continually voted to slash defense spending. Al Sharpton continues to offer cute sound bytes and race baiting remarks about not allowing Blacks to be robbed of their right to vote. Howard Dean has said he is unsure if removing Saddam Hussein was a positive move. Wesley Clarke, the media’s pet candidate, was until recently not even a registered Democrat. Bob Graham is already out of the race, Carol Mosley-Braun continues to rattle offer comic relief with her comments. John Edwards? Sure a trial lawyer would make a great president, just what we need more greed at the top. Dennis Kucinich? Are you serious? Elmer Fudd makes more sense than he does. Joe Lieberman is considered the most conservative of the candidates but really now if he is the most conservative, how far left are the rest?
So sorry my Democratic friends there is no hope in 2004. Not with these candidates, not with their lack of ideas, not with their message of doom and gloom, not with America winning the war on terror, and not with the economy improving. So get used to a Republican president and wait for 2008.
Get the drift?
You need to tone it down son! We have time to win this thing but you don't need to go rubbing it in their faces before we win! You might get them all excited & they'll swarm out & sting us in the face.
We will win because we are right. We will win but it takes time. Don't be too impatient.
Let's hope the same fate is in store for the Democratic party.
Tia
That's also why the unbelievable dirt was tossed just prior to the California elections. That little septic-tank-in-the-fan was brought to us courtesy of the national DNC, a la Terry McAuliffe and the Clintons. I absolutely guarantee everyone on this board that that was a tuneup for next year this time, when a bigger game is afoot.
The Democratic Party is about negatives, not positives.
That's natural enough for a party in minority - in the runup to the election their main job is to paint as black a picture of the status quo as necessary to make people less critical about the proposed changes. But there have to be proposed changes for it to work. There have to be programs, and so far there is very little to show in that direction, and it's getting late in the game. What slid Clinton by in '96 was his co-option of the Contract With America after having bitterly criticized its provisions during the previous two years; were it not for stealing Gingrich's, he'd have had no programs at all, and he was in power at the time! The point is that that sort of omission is permissible (barely) for an incumbent but not for a non-incumbent. The Dems had better pay heed or this one will be a wash despite the media.
Sooner than later I hope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.