The Democrats need a few sessions with Dr. Phil.
Posted on 01/27/2006 7:24:20 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
With all the problems the Bush administration is having in Iraq with surging oil prices and the media hammering the president 24/7 on just about everything, you would think liberalism would be getting some traction in North America. But apparently it's not.
Polls show that Americans support conservative judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court by a wide margin, Canada just elected a conservative prime minister after 13 years of liberal rule, and the president's terror warrior poll numbers dwarf those of any Democrat, despite all the controversies over eavesdropping and interrogation.
So what's going on?
The answer to that question can be best summed up by a new Gallup poll that says that 51 percent of Americans will not vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton under any circumstances should she secure the Democrat nomination for president.
So, evidently, it doesn't matter what Mr. Bush is doing, most Americans don't want the most well-known liberal Democrat in the country sitting in the White House.
That's a tough situation for the left. All the Bush-bashing in the world does not seem to be making liberal candidates more attractive. And the bashing might just be the problem.
For example, the four Bush-hating columnists at The New York Times, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich, have written an astounding 148 anti-Bush op-ed pieces in the past 13 months. That represents 47 percent of their total work output. I mean, how much loathing do you need? Why doesn't the Times just put a "We Hate Bush!" banner on its op-ed page and have everybody take a long lunch?
This kind of overreaction to a sitting president actually creates some sympathy for him among fair-minded Americans. After a while, the cacophony of hatred from the left is just numbing.
And it's also mean. American women, particularly, do not respond well to nastiness. Do you think Ted Kennedy's attacks on Samuel Alito and the subsequent tears from his wife helped the Democrats? Do you?
To be fair, Republicans made the same mistake with all the Clinton bashing. After a while, it just became boring.
But that was then, and this is now. We are living in a much more dangerous time. All the polls show that Americans remain uneasy about terrorism and their own personal security. And in this area, the Democrats poll far below the Republicans.
That's because the Dems do not put forth concrete solutions to vexing problems. What's the liberal solution to the chaotic illegal immigration situation and the porous southern border? How would the left handle Iran if it continues to develop nukes? And on Iraq, the Democrat message is mixed. Hillary wants to win it; Howard Dean says we can't achieve victory. When it comes to cohesion, the Democrat Party rivals the Balkans.
Finally, the left-wing media unknowingly hurts the Democrats, the very party it wants to promote. By making celebrities of loons like Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte, the press spotlights the radicalism on display on the fringes of the Democrat Party.
Republicans and conservatives hoot down Ms. Sheehan and Mr. Belafonte all day long, but liberals are largely silent. Believe me, that silence does not go unnoticed by independent-minded Americans.
And the Democrats have little chance to regain power in America without a substantial number of independents shifting to their cause. But right now, that is not happening, and I see no liberal strategy on the horizon to change the situation.
At this point, the champions of the blue states are, indeed, singing the blue
Old blowhard states the obvious....again...
The Republican party rejuvenated itself with Reagan, and later, the Gingrich Revolution. Though they've gone way off that path since, it was clear, direct ideas that they put out to run on. The Dems can't offer reforms of anything, since the things that need reform are the programs that they've used to buy their constituencies. Now they find themselves unable to offer ideas for the future because the problems to fix are the ones form the programs they offered a generation ago.
O'Reilly sometimes talks a good game, but he's as much a wingnut as the rest of the leftists. I had to turn off the radio tonight he was babbling so much about radical right wingers.
Which is why I suspect she will run as an independent. A transparent strategy, but a plausible one.
The Democrats need a few sessions with Dr. Phil.
I disagree. It's a good article.
The "We Hate Bush" line in ref to the NYT is actually better than good.
Good point, and depending on your opponent being stupider than you is no way to win. Reagan won because people wanted him, not because they couldn't stand Mondale.
Well, he's right this time.
The 2008 election is the Republicans' to lose. They still can lose it if they try hard enough, but only because they fail to put up a good candidate, not because the Democrats have any impressive candidates.
They seem to be turning against hillary, and now they're fighting over which losing presidential candidate is better, gore or kerry. The media pushed kerry for a year or so, and now they seem to be pushing gore.
Did you see they took a poll in Florida and Newt is the potential candidate moving up the list the fastest.... tied with McCain who is dropping... George Allen isn't gaining any traction in the polls. Given he is young, perhaps VP could be a better start for him.
"The "We Hate Bush" line in ref to the NYT is actually better than good."
___________________________________
And obvious.
Not much insight in blowhard's article...still better he write the obvious...and the true...than some other fluffy nonsense he is prone to....
He dissed the Swifties...it was shameful and I will never forget....so I give him no slack...
I need a few sessions with....
..LOL !!!
Of course in a few months, Loudmouth O'Reilly will stick his finger in the air, decide it's blowing a different way and give us the exact opposite rant.
Hannity interviewed Newt on H & C tonight. He asked if he was running. Newt said something about his grandchildren then had a big smile. Hannity said, "He's running."
But, the MSM has just about declared HRC the next president...
With one key, huge difference. Clinton actually did the stuff we bashed him for.
I haven't decided how I feel about the possibility yet. The man is brilliant, but his sudden friendship with Hillary bothered me and I've read some behind-the-scene stories of his tenure in congress that makes me wonder about his temperment for the job, but he could well be what we need to follow W and a Gingrich/Allen ticket would be a lot more appealing than a Kerry/Whoever ticket.
I hear that noise!
I don't give a hoot for Newt. After I learned that he cheated on his wife, the man is nothing to me, he's dead in my book.
Newt has too many skeletons in his closet.
The best candidate would be Jeb Bush, but I'm afraid the dynasty angle rules him out.
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.