Posted on 09/11/2004 11:40:40 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
On Nov. 19, 2002, right after the Republicans had dashed Democratic hopes of retaking the House of Representatives or the Senate in the midterm congressional elections, I wrote in this column that the Democrats "can still win in 2004." But then I added, "Here's the bad news: If they don't change their losers' strategy, they haven't a prayer."
Well, they still haven't a prayer.
As was said of the reactionary Bourbon kings of France in the 19th century, since then the Democrats have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Their presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, continues to make the same mistakes that buried his party two years ago, and therefore he is heading for another debacle this November.
The striking Republican victories in the 2002 midterm congressional elections were a remarkable personal triumph for President George W. Bush and his political master-strategist Karl Rove. But although they gained the crucial strategic prize of control of both houses of Congress, in terms of movement among voting blocs, theirs was a tactical victory, not a strategic one.
The Republicans did not make any significant inroads into the traditional Democratic "rainbow" coalition of the last 30 and more years. They made small but potentially crucial gains in extending their own base. For the first time since 1994 they won more than 50 percent of votes cast.
Their much-touted initiative, beloved of both the president himself and Rove, to woo Hispanic voters showed some very significant signs of gaining ground. Rick Perry, the victorious Republican gubernatorial candidate in Texas, won 35 percent of the Hispanic vote. The president's own brother Jeb won a whopping 60 percent of it in Florida. New York Gov. George Pataki coasted home to re-election with 50 percent of it.
Those results came in three of the four most populous states in the nation. Two years on, they are still all run by Republican governors with a proven track record of wooing Hispanic votes in the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States. New York still looks solid for Kerry, but Bush has a lock on Texas and almost as surely he is developing one on Florida.
Still, there was as yet no significant additional realignment among white voters in 2002. And there was no discernible upturn in GOP support among 34 million African-Americans. Nothing has changed in those factors since that election. But something else has not changed as well. In 2002 the Republican record on domestic issues was extremely weak, but their tactical game plan in obscuring that weakness and focusing on simple and far more potent issues was masterly.
In 2002, as today, the Republicans had one general in chief: Bush. And he had one strategic adviser and chief of staff: Rove.
The Democrats had a motley crew on wannabe leaders, and none of them had "The Right Stuff." For them it was a replay of the "Seven Dwarves" fiasco of 1988 when the only Democratic champion to emerge out of a lackluster field was Michael Dukakis.
Today the Democrats supposedly have a general in chief in Kerry, but he certainly does not delegate through one chief strategist and planner with a proven track record.
After months of endless waffles on Iraq and failures to take the president apart when he was -- or should have been -- reeling on one national security and economic issue after another, Kerry finally responded to his tumbling approval ratings last week by bringing James Carville, former President Bill Clinton's strategist in chief, on to his team.
But he did not even do what President George Herbert Walker Bush did when he brought Secretary of State James A. Baker on board to try and save his floundering re-election campaign in 1992 against Clinton: Kerry, unlike the elder Bush, did not even give his "emergency commander" the authority to do the job. Carville, along with fellow Clinton alumni Joe Lockhart and Joel Johnson, has just been added as another voice in a disorganized, decentralized and confused Democratic command structure.
And this is how a President Kerry would run the United States?
Even with the elder Bush's full support, and given total authority over the 1992 campaign, Baker was brought in too late to make any real impact. Without comparable authority, Carville doesn't have a prayer.
Kerry's dilemma is very clear. He has eerily echoed the spineless bungling of the Democratic congressional leadership in the 2002 campaign.
Then, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle more than any other Democrats influenced the overall party strategy in the midterm campaign. It was they above all who rolled over and backed the president on his hawkish policy toward confronting Iraq -- just as Kerry did. And like Kerry, even though they made the arguments on the economic front, they failed to do so with any decent emotional punch and therefore failed to connect with voters.
With Gephardt leading his passive Dems by the nose on these two crucial issues for the American electorate, the Democrats had nothing to counter the Republicans' "something" in 2002. Now, 2004 looks like the same old story.
Like a broken record or a scratched CD, the Democrats still imagine that Bush's support base will magically fall apart all on its own and that voters will flock to them even with a candidate who goes back into hibernation after every short burst of activity and who must again re-establish his personal credibility with the public after the hammering he took through August.
As we have repeatedly noted in UPI analyses, the root cause of the Democrats' dilemma in the post-Tip O'Neill era is that they continue to imagine that they can beat something with nothing. And they never have.
Only Bill Clinton, who despite his self-indulgent personal flaws most definitely was "something," has effectively led them into the corridors of executive power and kept them there over the past generation.
And so far, Kerry has yet to prove he can compare with the old Comeback Kid. Time is running out, and so is the Massachusetts senator's credibility.
MARTIN SIEFF is Senior News Analyst for UPI, a sister news agency of Insight.
It will be that Kerry didn't get their message out.
The only thought that pops out of this analysis is:
ENTER HILLARY - - - - the "Something" to replace all the "nothings" who tried to grab for the brass ring this time.
2008 should be an interesting election year.
Key to the entire issue is the whole Democratic party from McCaulife on down underestimating Bush. They truly believed there was so much hatred for Bush they couldn't lose. They had no agenda, no organization, and no candidate because they just figured anyone was going to beat Bush. When Dean appeared to be just a little too much of a lunatic they picked Kerry without the least thought on what he stood for or what kind of baggage he was carrying.
The ONLY conclussion available to anyone not blinded by hate and/or their own selfish interests.
What message? Think about what their message really is.
We are too incompetent to manage our own lives, too dumb to figure out how to take care of ourselves, and the wascally wepublicans are guilty of all the bad stuff that happens to us, individually and as a nation.
What disgusts me is that so many brain-deads will fall for it, hook, line, and sinker. P.T. Barnum was right.
Much like his beloved UN.
I belive Dan's answer to that question was either "98.1 on your FM dial" or "Once a month if I'm lucky!".
Ohhhh
Creepy but spot on.
Bump!
What do we know about the author Martin Sieff? I am guessing he is a lefty, in which case this article is very encouraging, but I'm not sure.
---The Rats will say they're the victims of the most heinous smear campaign ever seen in American political history, which Karl Rove got away with by co-opting and intimidating the news media with a bunch of right-wing zealots on the internet. This year it will be that they didn't get the "truth" out.---
That's the ticket!
Seriously though, it's reform or die time for the Dems. This brewing scandal could make Watergate look mild. This appears to be a criminal conspiracy involving CBS, the DNC, the Kerry campaign, and who knows who else.
Somebody over there needs to start making sense soon!
Each faction of the Democrat party will be accusing Kerry of not standing by their issue and getting their individual message out.
Message for Kerry: It's not the medals on your chest..
that count
It's the mettle in your chest.
President Bush has proved his mettle....and the country
knows it..hence the vote on Nov. 2nd will be for .."W"
Jake
Democrats really don't have to campaign for anything - just augmenting the status quo. So much for being "progressive".
Their policial forefathers, FDR, JFK & LBJ, made it possible that future campaigns only have to be about keeping the opposition from "taking away" the entitlements established since the Depression. If a voter receiving goverment monies, the growth of that person's economy is directly tied to the growth of government. What's this person's "pocket book" issue?
FYI
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.