Posted on 11/11/2004 5:10:27 AM PST by crushelits
is a Democrat, other than Evan Bayh, acknowledging that Democrats are contemptuous of middle-America values?
This guy gets it. let's hope the leftys tag him as a right wing kook!
Here's the million-dollar question for you libs - how are you going to rid yourself of your building and consuming contempt.....short of a campaign of deception or exorcism? Since you love to hate America and Americans, we know you won't do the latter. That leaves you one choice - to lie about your REAL agenda. Now there's a strategy that'll work.....but only if the American electorate is a dumb as you think we are.
Here we are a week after the election and I'm already sick and tired of an MSM driven recurring theme, "What went wrong with the Democrats and what can we do to save them?"
I say, this is all bulls**t! We all KNOW what is wrong with the Democrats, and I, for one, am tired of hearing about ways to help these recalcitrant and irredeemable Marxists "correct" themselves. In my opinion, let's all just consign them to the ash-heap of history, for the good of this country and its posterity!
I don't think the Dems get it yet. They have to drive out the anti-war, pro-gay, anti-religion groups to...Ralph Nader (?).
Communists never change their ulterior motives. They will alter it with a facade, but it will remain the same.
I think Lieberman gets it.
Here's the big problem with the Democratic party, IMHO.
They are so divided that the "hard core" Dems have contempt for moderates like Lieberman and Bayh, and types like Lieberman and Bayh are probably what the Dems need in order to get ahead in the future.
I read DU and those people are in full meltdown mode with this recount business (they keep reporting it's happening, but I sure can't find it in any of the MSM or on any New Hampshire site). Anyhow, I digress.
Mention a name like Bayh to those folks and they'd denigrate him. So what's a party to do. Hard left won't consider moderates, and Dems don't want to alienate the hard left in order to move to the center.
Decisions, decisions, LOL.
i agree. the real issue in my mind is who they select to replace terry mcauliffe. a strong leader will get the democrats back in focus. if their focus reamins as is and they articulate that, even without the hatred, they are toast. if they refocus more to the right, they will have a message more appealing to the mainstream, but they run the risk of alienating the far left kooks.
They all are and this is how they phrase it: "The Democratic Party is out of touch with vast swathes of Americans. We fail to reach them with our values because until we can make them realize what a stupid blundering chimp they are voting for, who went to war because Cheney wanted his stock portfolio to go up, who is bound and determined to see every senior and every child die for lack of health care, every person of working age without a job, every woman dying of a coat-hanger abortion because the Republican taliban has an even more extreme view of the role of women, no retirement security for anyone because he wants to reward his rich contributors, they will not listen to us on values issues.
Let's totally run down a President in war-time, let's give him no credibility in America, and then Americans will want to vote for gay marriage, outsourcing our nation's security to the U.N., higher taxes, lawsuit lotteries, turning our prisons to voting mills, doing away with private property rights, outlawing SUVs (except for us), and all of the policies, ideas, and programs that Karl Marx could only dream about!"
Blah blah blah. In other words, OUR side is still wrong.
And that we should follow the example of Martin Luther King Jr. in harnessing the values of faith to advance progressive (read: socialist/communist) causes, from civil rights (read: affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage) to environmental protection. (read: loss of property rights, no more oil exploration)
More doublespeak.
It means declaring our independence from the sclerotic influence of progress-blocking interest groups like the teachers unions.
That's pretty much the only sensible thing he said.
I think there will be a democratic party split along the same lines as the Reform Party / GOP split in the late 80's early 90's. We conservatives had several major issues to flesh out and see which ideology will win the day. This election was the result of a unified party that put it's kooks in their place and won big.
The democrats will go though the same type process, to rid the party of the left wing kooks will take time.
I think you will see a Al Gore / Dean ticket in 2008 to run against Hillary / Patsy in the primaries.
She is already pals with so-called evangelical Tony Campolo. She is a Methodist. She reads the Bible. She goes to church.
If the deficit remains high (which is a big IF), she will claim the policies of her live-in liar led to surpluses inf the 90's and that the Repub's approach led to higher deficits. She will promise to lead us to the economic promised land on the path of "higher taxes on the rich."
She will present a formidable opponent mainly because she will show that Dims can be religious (even "Christian") and still have these liberal notions. We better be ready.
I love post mortems when it is the other side's mort that we're posting. The dems problem is that they have become mindless reactionaries. The landscape has shifted beneath them and they are still holding on to old, failed ideas, that they keep trying to apply to modern realities.
IOW, the ideas that built the dem party's appeal over the course of the 20th century, that a government has a responsibility to improve the lives of its citizens, (how this debate has been lost by the right is another rant) really have lost their resonance because they keep applying the sledgehammer to the mosquito. They have not only lost touch with any sense of perspective, they have no credibility when they try it on. They are just not believed because, well, they lie. Ex. count every vote, but disenfranchise the military.
So while they look at Clinton as an example of one of their's that had broad appeal, and could be elected and reelected, they forget that while he was a brilliant politician, at the end of the day he only stood for himself. Most people have a sense of that, if not actually articulated.
They simply have strained all their rhetorical cred to the breaking point, and sound hysterical, unsteady, and without balance. Right now, they are such a grab bag of special interests, they can't make a sensible argument without alienating one or more of them. And they have no legacy representative that has a biography of love of country and support for its ideals.( well, Zell and Lieberman excepted) But of course those guys have no broad appeal in the party.
It will be a while before they figure it out and actually deal with all their problems rather than just try to slick their image. Cause, well, they lie.
We must not kid ourselves. They will "learn their lesson," but that lesson will be one of even more subterfuge corrupts and propaganda. Our win was a wonderful achievement, but we should not imagine that it was anything other than a temporary rout.
They underestimated us this time, and their anger momentarily allowed for their masks to slip. They will not be so stupid next time.
Now is the time to call them out for what they really are.
You can run from your record, but you can't hide it?
There's a lot of stuff out there that will be unleashed upon hitlary and her amoral husband.
Would the ticket look like
CLINTON-CLINTON+EDWARDS?
CLINTON-CLINTON+KERRY?
OMT. I often wonder how the future will write the history of this great place, and I think that while the pattern of all great things, is rise decline and fall, it seems to me that one of the best things about this country of ideals and laws, is that we have evolved a system that encapsulates these inevitible forces in the two dominant parties. The dems have risen, become bankrupt and corrupt and are in decline. Fortunately for us, this is just one party not the entire country. That is our survival mechanism, I think.
We have evovled a system that shunts corruption into one or the other sides, a very dynamic and effective body politic that somehow has tripped into the key to survival. Heck its a theory. LOL
"It means declaring our independence from the sclerotic influence of progress-blocking interest groups like the teachers unions..."
LOL, you are right! But still, I can't believe he said it!
I wish he had criticized Kerry for saying he would do NOTHING to change Soc. Sec. Everybody knows that is an untenable position, and to me that proved the media was in the tank for Kerry.
I don't think the dems can change the way this man, and others, have recommended. I think it COULD be done, but I don't think they've got the stomach for it.
It would entail deciding it was OK to kill terrorists and not OK to kill babies, for one thing. And they just don't beleive stuff like that.
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.