Why We Lost (lack of a clear sense of what the party stands for)

NY Times ^ | November 5, 2004 | editorial

[RinaseaofDs]

I call it 'logic intolerant'.

[IronJack]

Actually, it is the painful truth that they "lack a clear vision."

It's also significant that even when they find that "vision," it does not coincide with America's.

You know that. And I know that. But they don't know that.

Someone could do an interesting doctoral thesis on the pathology behind the Democrats' repeated failures at the ballot box. I'm sure analysis would reveal the same etiology as other obsessive/compulsive disorders. Which means that when we call the Democrats "loons," we're using it in the clinical, scientific sense. They truly are deranged.

[mlocher]

Most people have sense enough to come in out of the rain.

LOL...the operative word in your statement is "most"...

[ModelBreaker]

Throughout the campaign, voters told reporters and pollsters that they wanted a change, but didn't "know what John Kerry stands for."

The reason for this is simple. Were democrats to be honest about what they actually believe, they would never win another election. So they have to pretend to be moderate, to love their country, to like regular Americans, to be in favor of defending this country etc etc etc.

But they have to do it with a roll-of-the-eye to their base--"We have to say this stuff for the rubes. We don't really mean it." Otherwise, the base will stay home or vote for Ralph Nader.

They end up sounding like coneheads--"The earthlings read from a book called the Bible. We must read the bible too so that they not notice the cones on our heads."

The reason Bill Clinton won is that, as Bob Kerrey said, he was an 'uncommonly good liar.' He was able to speak the language of religion and moderation effectively and sound genuine, without believing a word he said.

Conclusion, the only democrat that can win a national race is a sociopath that will self destruct in office. Intact personalities who are democrats just aren't good enough at lying.

[mississippi red-neck]

I'm not sure what his stand on guns was, but that's not really the point.

It was the same as with the other important issues.

He was either for them or against them.

That's the point.

[mississippi red-neck]

Thanks WF. They never learn.

[ctdonath2]

lack of a clear sense of what the party stands for.

They know what the party stands for. WE know what their party stands for. Thing is, only a minority supports that stand - so they have to deny their principles, claim what they would rather not, and bash the opposition.

It's simple: Their principles are not held by a majority of actual voters. If they can't win on principles, they can't win.

[XJarhead]

A well-written article, but the answer doesn't help them. The true theme of the Democratic party is that it is the party of big government. But Clinton already told them that era is over. That leaves them unable to state clearly what their true theme is, so they can win only by concealing it.

The best evidence of that is that the word "liberal" is the kiss of death.

[raivyn]

Mom: you are logged into my account again! (Actually, I think I forgot log off your computer last night! Sorry!)