Democratic Catastrophe

Washington Post ^ | 11/7/02 | E. J. Dionne Jr.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The Democrats thought they could run against President Bush without actually running against him. They were wrong. They thought they could make the economy an issue without offering a coherent alternative to Bush's policies. They were wrong. They thought they could get their electoral base to turn out without explaining why it was urgent to stop Bush's program. They were wrong.

The result is an electoral catastrophe, worse for Democrats than the 1994 Republican sweep. Then, at least, Democrats held the White House and could shape the political argument. Now, they have no power centers, no obvious leader.

Democrats will comfort themselves by saying that this was a very close election. A few thousand votes the other way in a few states and the Senate majority could have remained theirs. We remain a 50-50 country. But the country won't stay that way if Democrats fail to see this election as a rejection of their small-bore approach to issues. The voters' verdict should shatter the party's illusions that after 9/11, accommodation to Bush is what's required for success...

[2banana]

Then, at least, Democrats held the White House

And, of course, they had the main stream press...

[cajungirl]

If you read the whole article, there is a place where he said the pubs because they believed their view was right went to vote in droves. It was implied that pubs were rigid and just sort of idealogues. Does it occur to these people that people are just sick of the dems with their total lack of integrity. He presents this as a political problem, they need to stand for something against Bush. It is much worse, the dems just want power and will manipulate anyone, any group, any truth to get it. That is why they are failing.

[DJ Frisat]

"...and the illegitimate, razor-thin Senate majority could have remained theirs."

They left out a couple of words...

[Rippin]

Yes, just imagine the 62 senate seats the Republicans might have had if the Democrats HAD tried to stand against Bush instead of triangulating. Maybe in 2004 we can find out?

[rudypoot]

"Most Democrats believe the Bush tax cuts are a disaster not only because they threaten fiscal chaos but also because they will deprive the government of revenue needed to solve problems."

The more people invest in the stock market, the more people will learn how the system works. Therefore, more people will realize that government can't solve these kinds of problems through regulation.

The 401(k) is to Republicans as Social Security is to Democrats.

[alex]

"This debate is useless. The Democrats' problem is not about positioning. It's about having something to say about things that matter. Most Democrats believe the Bush tax cuts are a disaster not only because they threaten fiscal chaos but also because they will deprive the government of revenue needed to solve problems. But too many Democrats were afraid to say that."

"Most Democrats believe that government regulation -- to protect the environment and to curb business abuses -- can be a good thing. But too many were afraid to say that."

"Most Democrats worry that a divided Bush foreign policy team will mismanage a war on Iraq and needlessly alienate our allies. But too many were afraid to say that."

If ever had a courage to say that they would only worsen their loss. I would love to see RATs following the advise of this dork.

IMHO, the key new element in post 9/11 politics is that it is much harder to win simply by pretending of being pro-business/pro-friedom/pro-gun patriot without really being one.

[Drango]

no obvious leader.

Hillary?

[thucydides]

Dionne still doesn't get it. He thinks the democrats could have made the case the tax cuts will keep the government from doing good things - who believes the government can even carry out minimal governmental functions properly, let alone ambitious social engineering schemes? He thinks the democrats could have made the case for the good that regulation can do - again, regulation is now seen by many in the public as a cozy arrangement to benefit the "regulated" and raise money for politicians. He thinks the democrats could make the case a divided Bush team would mismanage the war on terror - the Bush team is divided? Or is it the democrats with their 1960's mentality in one corner, and a few who dimly glimpse reality on this, like Lieberman and Gephardt, in the other corner? No, E.J., you really don't get it.

[Kevin Curry]

Now, they have no power centers, no obvious leader.

Not to fear! The liberal braintrust at DU has solved the problem: Barney Frank for Hosue Minority Leader.

No kidding.

[jerod]

There's a lot of whining going on, but nobody has complained that much about Dash-hole. I hope that keeps up.

Keeping him as the DumocRAT leader will help to ensure that Bush gets his full 8 years in office. And to win the Senate next time round, the Rats will have to win their own 20 seats, plus another 3. Fat chance doing that.

[angry elephant]

I>Does it occur to these people that people are just sick of the dems with their total lack of integrity.

Also, the Dims refuse to face the fact that a lot of people realize that their policies were the cause of 9/11, and if continued we would have no country left.

[ConservativeDude]

that is a fantastic idea

[Kevin Curry]

Barney Frank for House Minority Leader? He's got this conservative Republican's vote.

Unfortunately for us, Barney Frank is not a stupid man. I doubt that he would seek let alone accept such a position, knowing how catastrophic the consequences would be on his already-disintegrating party.

But who knows? Sometimes vanity trumps intelligence.

[kapj]

When President Bush (handily) defeats Saddam and rebuilds the military, when America again stands tall among the nations, when he turns the economy around, when he slashes taxes and eliminates the last vestiges of Liberal Big Governemnt he will absolutely destroy what's left of the Left.

[hillsborofox]

"...because of their affection for Bush and because they believe with such conviction that their view of the world is right, conservative Republicans swarmed the ballot boxes. "

Broken glass power!

[KC_Conspirator]

The democrats did'nt offer any national security plan. Thats why they got their clock cleaned.

[Destructor]

Stay asleep Dimocrats! America doesn't need your blatant Socialism. Sleep...sleep...

[gcruse]

The result is an electoral  catastrophe, worse for Democrats
than the 1994 Republican sweep.  Then, at least, Democrats held the
White House and could shape the  political argument.

You know what?  I had forgotten that detail.
It was wonderful in 1994 to see something I
thought I would never see in my life, a Republican
Congress.  So my celebration this election was
not as exuberant as 1994.   Saaluuuute!!!

[AFPhys]

and besides that, their selecting N.Pelosi as their new spokesman will be a highly visible problem for them, as is their need to somehow eject the 'Toons and the fringe left.

I see noway they can do it, which makes me ecstatic.