Posted on 08/04/2004 7:34:56 PM PDT by Vision Thing
Today Gallup lets us peek a bit more behind the long, heavy, woolen skirts of dreary, geriatric Leftism. Unlike many of the establishment "polling organizations" which are wholly owned subsidiaries of the DNC, Gallup has a bit of a reputation to protect. Polling, after all, is its only business. Poll "results" which make informed people laugh out loud until tears roll down their cheeks (e.g. CBS News "polls" or Newsweek "polls") are simply untenable for Gallup.
So it is worth looking at what Gallup told us today. The brief summary of the Gallup results is that Kerry-Edwards is a Japanese kamikaze plane missing the American task force entirely and instead smashing into the Japanese super battleship Yamato. The question is not whether Kerry will lose, but how many other Democrats he will take with him.
First, the un-Bounce. This has received much coverage and, of course, Kerry-Edwards received no bounce at all. That is grand political history, but inconvenient grand political history and so casually ignored by the establishment. It does not merit such breathtaking news as, say, a headline "Kerry says Bush Administration is bad for America!"
There was much more to the un-Bounce. Gallup shows now that President Bush receives fifty-one percent of the vote in a trial heat. Fifty-one percent: a majority; more than all the other choices combined; not just a plurality, but a majority. Until recently, it looked like America would have its fourth consecutive plurality presidential election winner. Now it looks like President Bush may receive more votes that all the other candidates combined.
That matters. A majority would give President Bush a much stronger bully pulpit. It would cow into silence any Democrat who in 2007 is still whining about Florida 2000. President Bush would do what only one Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt has been able to do. He would be more popular than Truman, JFK or Clinton.
Second, the character issues. Although Kerry gained a bit on essentially meaningless questions like "cares about people like you," he lost on credibility and leadership issues. He lost on issues related to trustworthiness relative to Bush. Despite the feting of Michael Moore, President Bush is widening his lead on leadership and credibility.
Third, the values issues. Kerry actually had a slight lead going into the convention on "shares your values" and he lost that lead to Bush! Before Republicans have even become the process of methodically showing America the truth - Kerry is the most liberal member of the United States Senate - Kerry's own scripted convention had helped that education process along.
If Kerry cannot speak at a micro-managed event like the Democrat National Convention to make the case that his values are Middle America, how will he look in a neutral or even a hostile environment? Compounding his problem is this dilemma: repudiating his strident Leftism will make him look even less honest and decisive; embracing his strident Leftism cause the natural 60% to 40% conservative over all other categories (including moderates and apathetic) in America.
Fourth, the more it appears that Kerry will lose, the more other Democrats will scramble to save their political careers or will begin to position themselves to run in 2008. Although Hillary Clinton gets most of the attention, if the 2004 election is a clear rejection of Leftism, then the Democrats who will have the best chance in 2008 are not old ladies like Hillary, but other voices and other faces.
Who? Governor Richardson of New Mexico has cut taxes; he is vastly more civil and pleasant than other Democrats. He has served in the Clinton cabinet, but recall that Zell Miller gave speeches at the Democrat National Convention for Clinton and Gore. As an Hispanic, Richardson also would be a big draw.
Governor Henry of Oklahoma has striven hard to have cordial and serious bipartisanship. He is very popular in a state which is a slam dunk Republican win without him on the ticket in 2008. Like Richardson, Henry has a calm and nice persona. He is also young enough to be at the bottom of the ticket and bide his time.
North Carolina Governor Michael Easley, if he wins reelection, could probably do what Senator Edwards could not do: deliver his state. Easley works with a divided state legislature in a conservative state.
Those of us who care about America should fondly hope that moderate or moderately liberal Democrat governors from Flyover Country, men who live in the real world, capture control of the Democrat Party and nominated two candidates compatible with American values four years from now.
Many of us have had false hopes before. When Carter won in 1976, I deeply hoped that his experience at Annapolis and his professed Christian faith would make him different from other Democrats. When Clinton won in 1992, I hoped that the "centrist" positions he propounded were honestly believed. The truth in both cases was different, but that does not mean that all the good Democrats are gone.
What if, in 1992, Democrats had nominated another "centrist" Southern governor to be their candidate - Zell Miller? Although it seems unthinkable to us today, Clinton and Miller were considered extremely close politically in 1992. What if Ed Koch, instead of Al Gore, had been Vice President?
Patriotic Americans - and I have said this many times - should want Democrats to begin choosing as their leaders decent, serious and thoughtful men like Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Robert Casey (the Pennsylvania governor whose Pro-Life position kept him from speaking at the Democrat National Convention in 1992.)
The process of reforming the Democrat Party involves a big stick - showing Democrats that they will have PMS (permanent minority status) as long as they nominate Leftists like Kerry - but it also must involve a juicy carrot as well. We should want good men to win every presidential election. That means we should want Democrats to start nominated good men again.
BUMP!
Tee hee!
Hey, it isn't the 80's anymore. People are supposed to be more socially conscious and enlightened and all that stuff. There's absolutely nothing wrong in identifying your beliefs as being the l-word.... whatever it is. Been such a long time since I've heard it, I can't remember how to pronounce it.
We do not need the Democrat Party to reformitself, we need it to die, quickly.
I like the PMS statement (permanent minority status) !!
As for the author's statement that the democrats should stop nominating leftists as their candidates, I think we can file that under "ain't gonna happen", ever! They've been the party of screeching leftists for a long time.
The Clinton wing of the DNC knows Kerry can't possibly win.
No, they won't. They will have "BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION!" engraved on their headstones.
Like a drug addict or an alcoholic, the Democratic Party has to hit rock bottom before they realize they need to change. They haven't hit rock bottom yet, but I'm hoping they will on November 2nd! And if that happens, the old leadership - I'm thinking specifically of Bill and Hil - will be swept aside. We could call it the Tuesday Night Massacre! (all allusions to actual physical violence disavowed)
I'm not so sure we want it to finally die... but just to stay really, really sick. If the democrat party were to die completely it would be replaced by something even more virulent, like the socialist party...
hehehe... dopey me... that's already happened. Nevermind.
Although I have the same knee-jerk reaction, thoughtful reflection says this would be very bad. We do NOT want a one-party system, even if it is Republican. All things that exist with no competition will become thoroughly wasteful and corrupt - including the Repub party (even more than it is already) - if it has no healthy competition.
"We do not need the Democrat Party to reform itself, we need it to die, quickly."
-- Yes, but we will always have a multi-party system. I believe that if the DNC does collapse, the Democratic far-left will join up with the Green Party and meke it legitimate. Democratic party moderates will bring in a lot of RINOs and form a new "centrist" party. New breakdown:
GOP - 40%
Centrist Party - 30%
Green Party - 20%
Independents - 10%
While I like your affiliations... those wouldn't be parties that the democrat-party lifeboat jumpers would ever consider.
To be fair, JFK had a really good reason for bowing out of the 1964 election.
Not that we're complaining. If they want to self destruct, go 'head, make our day.
Fortunately for us, we conservatives know that the Clinton wing can't possibly win either.
No way! They have that website called MoveOn. These people are not obsessed, I tell ya'. /sarcasm
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.