Posted on 11/08/2004 7:24:18 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
On the morning after the election, newspeople at cable outlets and National Public Radio launched a one-day seminar to educate themselves on the "new" and "surprising" finding that millions of Americans had actually voted on social issues. The seminar was necessary because mainstream media personnel don't spend much time or space covering these issues and don't personally know anybody willing to say they count for much. But exit polls showed that at 22 percent, "moral values" was the biggest issue on the minds of voters, and four fifths of the 22 percent had voted for Bush...
Democrats might want to tone down the contempt for evangelicals in particular and religious people in general that increasingly flows through their secular-dominated party. This is a very religious nation. If the Democrats aspire to become the majority party, why do they tolerate so much antireligious behavior and expression? They also might have a word with out-of-control adjuncts of the party like People for the American Way, whose mission is apparently to hammer away at religious conservatives, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which is always ready to descend on every 6-year-old who writes a school essay on Jesus or who says, "God bless you" after a sneeze. Do they think religious voters fail to notice? ...
They might also have second thoughts about the strategy of getting judges to impose solutions that they want but that the voters are unwilling to accept. It is beginning to dawn on many Democrats that John Kerry may have lost the election on Nov. 18, 2003, when Massachusetts's highest court, by a 4-to-3 vote, conjured up a right to gay marriage that nobody else had ever located anywhere in the state Constitution. In a backlash, state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed easily in all 11 states...
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
If the dems knew how to pick them in the primaries they wouldn't be in this mess.
unfortunately, i have to disagree with you on this one. at primary time there was not a single dem who not have put them in this mess concerning moral values.
"i am looking for a man in the democratic party with moral values" -- diogenes, holding up a light.
Remember the 10 that they had to choose from?
Joe Lieberman was the best of the lot....That's sad.
Remember the 10 that they had to choose from?
Joe Lieberman was the best of the lot....That's sad.
The nation needs two healthy political parties. And, right now, the Democrats ain't one of them.
The Democrats have to cure themselves. Or something else must take their place.
What about Dick Brainfart? Wouldn't he have helped them in Ohio?
Gephardt did not worry me.
I can't explain why, well maybe I can, Lieberman was on the ticket that got more popular vote in 2000. If the Anybody But Bush crowd had rallied behind him, I would have had more concern.
But, the lefties refuse to support anybody that actually believes in religion.
JMHO
your analysis is right on as well. using cj prahalad's (business strategy guru from u of m) rule of three, in business, there will be 3 dominant players formed by expansion, buyouts, mergers and acquisitions that make up 90 % of the market share, with a bunch of other companies taking niche markets. the companies with the most focus will be in the top 3.
the democrats, lacking focus, are splintering because, as you so adequately put it, they are a bunch of special interests with no common focus. because of their lack of leadership, vision, mission and purpose, they are doing just the opposite of what growing organizations do. and they have done it without layoffs, spin offs, asset sales, etc. they are to be commended on their unique method of self destruction....
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.