Baffled in Loss, Democrats Seek Road Forward

WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 - The Democratic Party emerged from this week's election struggling over what it stood for, anxious about its political future, and bewildered about how to compete with a Republican Party that some Democrats say may be headed for a period of electoral dominance.

Democrats said President Bush's defeat of Senator John Kerry by three million votes left the party facing its most difficult time in at least 20 years. Some Democrats said the situation was particularly worrisome because of the absence of any compelling Democratic leader prepared to steer the party back to power or carry its banner in 2008.

"We really need to work on the question of what we are for," said Walter F. Mondale, the former vice president whose 1984 loss to Ronald Reagan was invoked by some Democrats in assessing the party's spirits now. "Unless we have a vision and the arguments to match, I don't think we're going to truly connect with the American people."

Gov. Janet Napolitano, Democrat of Arizona, where Mr. Kerry made a failed effort to grasp from the Republican column, said: "We need a fresh reassessment of how we communicate with people. How did a party that has been out of power in Washington, D.C., become tagged with the problems of Washington, D.C.? How did a party that is filled with people with values - and I am a person with values - get tagged as the party without values?"

And Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said: "We need to be a party that stands for more than the sum of our resentments. In the heartland, where I am from, there are doubts. Too often we're caricatured as a bicoastal cultural elite that is condescending at best and contemptuous at worst to the values that Americans hold in their daily lives."

Mr. Kerry's loss has, inevitably, created recriminations about a candidate that many Democrats had always viewed as stiff, and a campaign that was often criticized as slow-moving and unfocused. Democrats said that Mr. Kerry failed to provide a compelling message, gliding on the belief that Mr. Bush would defeat himself, and that the campaign was slow in responding to attacks on his war record by Vietnam veterans.

And some Democrats, especially centrist ones, expressed concern that liberals would draw a mistaken lesson from the loss: that the Democratic Party needed to swing back to the left to energize Democratic base voters to counter the upsurge of conservative base voters on the right.

"That's not a recipe for winning," said Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, a Democrat frequently mentioned by party officials as a possible presidential contender in 2008. "That's a recipe for disaster."

But the criticisms of Mr. Kerry were slight when compared with the scorn offered for Al Gore after he lost in 2000, or for Michael S. Dukakis after his defeat in 1988. And there was little sign, at least so far, of the kind of intra-party warring that typically grips losing political parties.

Instead, in interviews with elected officials and party leaders across the country, Democrats were much more interested in talking about the future than this past year, reflecting what Stanley Greenberg, the Democratic pollster who advised Mr. Kerry and worked for Bill Clinton in 1992, sardonically described as the unifying power President Bush has wielded over the typically fractious Democratic Party.

Several party officials said what they were most concerned about was the extent to which Republicans had succeeded in presenting the Democratic Party as out of the cultural mainstream.

"I'm not saying that Kerry did anything wrong on this, but I think that we ignored in large measure the three big cultural issues of this election: guns, abortion and gay rights, epitomized by gay marriage," said Harold M. Ickes, a former senior adviser to Bill Clinton who ran an independent political committee that sought to unseat Mr. Bush, adding. " These are very, very big issues. They really, really motivate people."

Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, Democrat of Michigan, said that in order to be competitive with Republicans, Democrats had to have a message that was ''strong and strongly pro-work, pro-responsibility, pro-duty, pro-service, pro-child, pro-seniors."

"And not to be afraid of saying God," Ms. Granholm said. "And not to be afraid of saying that this is a country that is based upon faith.''

Party officials said they were concerned about evidence of a cultural gap between Democrats and much of the country. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said that his dealings with Mr. Kerry and his advisers had vividly demonstrated to him the problems the party faces.

"I remember being on a trip with him in New Mexico: I put a cowboy hat on Senator Kerry and someone on his staff shuddered and asked me to stop," he said. "This is I think an example of the East Coast not connecting with the West Coast and with the rest of the country."

Democrats said their immediate concern was the 2006 Senate elections, when 17 Democratic incumbents are up, compared to 15 Republicans, giving Republicans an automatic upper-hand from the outset. Several of the Democrats are in nominally Democratic states where Mr. Bush made a strong showing, like New Mexico and Minnesota. The Republicans picked up four Senate seats on Tuesday, expanding their hold on the Senate to 55-45.

The problem, some Democrats said, will be even more vexing in 2008, when there will be no incumbent president , leaving the race open on both sides. At this very early date, party officials said Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York senator, is best positioned to win the presidential nomination. But Democrats and some Republicans said Mrs. Clinton was open to caricature by Republicans as the type of candidate that this election suggested was so damaging to the Democratic Party: a Northeastern, secular liberal.

In addition to Mrs. Clinton, two Democrats from this year - Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who was Mr. Kerry's running mate, and Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor - are likely to move to wield influence, and perhaps run for president themselves.

Both men are burdened by their own losses this year. And in one disadvantage for Mr. Edwards, several party officials said there would likely be renewed hesitancy to run a member of Congress for the presidency, given the success the White House had undercutting Mr. Kerry's credibility with votes he had cast.

So the other Democrats mentioned as either high-profile leaders and possible presidential candidates are all governors; Mr. Warner, Mr. Richardson, Ms. Napolitano, as well as Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina and Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois.

Party officials said that the results of this election underscored what had appeared to be the case in 2002. Republicans have now surpassed the Democrats in registering and turning out the voters.

Coming off this election, Democratic officials said they were concerned that the party's ideological and geographical appeal is shrinking after looking at an election night map blazing with red states. They said that while Mr. Kerry might have been technically right in saying that a presidential candidate could win without competing in the South, the party would stumble unless it broadened its support.

"We must be a 50-state national party," said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson. "We must take on the South, reach more working poor people."

Ms. Napolitano, who in an interview over the summer expressed confidence that Mr. Kerry would win her state (he lost it by 11 percentage points), said: "You can't write off everything from Atlanta to California. You've got to find some beachheads there. Obviously it's going to be more uphill than we thought."

Some party leaders cautioned against glumness, noting that Mr. Kerry had come within 3 percentage points of defeating Mr. Bush, a wartime president. But other Democrats argued that the party had as strong a chance for victory as it could have hoped for, and argued that the loss presaged a period of Republican domination.

"We are in a tremendous amount of trouble," said Gordon Fischer, the Iowa Democratic chairman. "There are fundamental problems not only with the candidates, but also our tactics and the message: Who Democrats are and what we believe."

Most of all, though, party leaders said the main challenge now was coming up with a compelling case to make to voters, to counter what they acknowledged was the clear message Mr. Bush had made. Mr. Warner, reflecting what has been a theme of his governorship in Virginia, said Democrats should seek to present themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility by attacking Republicans for growing deficits.

Al From, the head of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats, said that the party made a mistake by spending too much time on getting out the vote and that the way to win an election was to come up with a message the way Mr. Clinton did in 1992.

"This is the second election in a row where they got a majority of the popular vote, because they did in 2002," he said. "A mobilization strategy, while important, is clearly not the most important thing. We need to persuade people who would otherwise vote for them to vote for us. And you do that with good ideas.''

Maybe they are not seen as having values because they elected people like the Clinton's. It seems republican domination began with his election. Maybe if they want to appeal to middle america they shouldn't have nominated an aging radical antiwar activist.

Now they are all sitting twisting and turning thinking, "I can't imagine what we did wrong????"

How about yard work?

Be very careful what you ask for. It is already illegal to burn leaves. Ever think about what bending over to pull a weed or plant a begonia does to your back. Have you received training on ergonometric yard pracitices. Is your hand-cart OSHA complient. We could have a government program on yard work. It is how the new church attending neo-elites will connect with the red-states. They will be photographed at the annual church garden sale. We will have Harvard professors sitting on government commissions to approve hydroponic home-gardening programs. The Ag (deparmtent of Agriculture) equivalent of Energy's (DOE's) weather-stripping program (bet you didn't know we had one of those - a government program to help you weatherstrip your front door).

Think about it the Dems just dont get it during President Bush term there was 9/11,the recovery from that, but there was also, the following events the man from my state who sued to get the Pledge out of school siting it was violating his daughters right yet his daughter was a Christian and lived with her mom, than there was the Judge Moore incident what harm did 10 good commandments do to hurt people and the fact that Judge Moore paid for the stone oh yes I forget it was in a STATE building yet go to the Washington area there are many things that evoke the name of GOD it is part of our hertiage. The Gay Marriage issue once again in CA the lovely Mayor of San Fran decided he was going to BREAK the law and let people get married of the same sex yet it was a violation of the state and city law but Gavin decided he was the darling of the Dems and broke the law should I go on When you destroy ever ounce of what this country is all about people are going to stand up and rise.
And also,do they honestly think it was in there best interest to continue to attack the President on everything for the party who believes in all people they sure found alot wrong in G.W.
and finally they say (the dems )they stand up for social issue the poor, the suffering etc. well so do the Republicans and the Christians they are making fun of right now are the very people who give money to other countries in there offerings, feed the homeless, help the sick, help battered woman and children I think it was Al Gore in charity gave less than that of G.W.Bush so for the party (the Dems)who are interested in the down and out think about alot of times it is the very people they dislike who help the down and out.
and that would be who THE REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe the Liberal Credo should be displayed on public property.

THE LIBERAL CREDO

1. Capitalism creates oppression; government creates opportunity.

2. Traditional gender roles are artificial but feminism and homosexuality are government-protected lifestyles.

3. Self-esteem is paramount; government must undertake to guarantee each citizen-victim self-esteem no matter the cost.

4. The ACLU is good, because destroying religion and silencing believers are protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment; The NRA is bad because it defends the Constitution.

5. Standardized IQ tests are racist; racial quotas and affirmative action are not.

6. Conservatives are racists; everybody knows that Black people can't make it on their own without big-buck government assistance programs and Hollyweirdos to proselytize the message 24/7.

7. Normal sex is perverted. Threesomes, bestiality, necrophilia, homosexuality are just new ways to get a thrill.

8. Moral indignation is a liberal's standard strategy for endowing our output with superiority.

9. Victimization is our basic belief by which we blame and find others responsible for our own personal failures, then expect taxpayers, deep-pocketed individuals, or the courts to bail us out. It feels good to be in the throes of "victimization" and either A) causing victims, B) concocting victims, C) playing victim, D) commiserating over victims, or E) creating another class of victims to bleed over.

10. It's a liberal's duty to treat Middle America in the manner of raising mushrooms, that is to say, keep them in the dark and feed them lots of horse manure.

(Yawn)

Somebody wake me up when the Dims stop blathering.

All of this underlines the inescabale fact that we, the people, own the WH and all that lovely Capitol Hill real estate for a long, long time.....free and clear.....with no mortgage due anytime soon.

And, if this column is any indication, nothing the cluless Dims come up with is going to change that.

(Snore)

"How did a party that is filled with people with values - and I am a person with values - get tagged as the party without values?"

One of my favorite questions for any RAT - name one traditional liberal value. Ties 'em up in knots every time.

Someone on Fox & Friends mentioned something about Karl Rove (the architect) designing a plan to make Pubbies THE governing party - for a long, long time. Once the RATS get that news, you'll be able to HEAR the hospitals fill up with nervous breakdown victims...

For the first time in years I have been enjoying watching the MSM channels with all their lib commentators agonizing over why Bush kicked their butts.

The lame explanations are just astounding.

Of course after watching them bash Bush for 4 years non-stop it is GREAT to see them endlessly lament how he ultimately beat them all.
I am truly enjoying this.

>>>>"I remember being on a trip with him in New Mexico: I put a cowboy hat on Senator Kerry and someone on his staff shuddered and asked me to stop," he said. "This is I think an example of the East Coast not connecting with the West Coast and with the rest of the country."

"and someone on his staff shuddered and asked me to stop"

Interesting. Who was this that shuddered?

...... name one traditional liberal value......

Kerry's obeisance to Christian-hating Hollywarped weirdos demonstrated that he would have strengthened Follywood's destructive chokehold on American culture. Kerry idiotically called foul-mouthed Whoppi Goldberg the "soul of America" and stupidly aligned himself with religious-hating Hollyood' value system.

THE HOLLYWOOD CREED

Christians are evil.

Women are to be valued only for their cleavage.

The traditional family is archaic, constricting, with no redeeming value.

Parents that try to guide their children's choices are restrictive. Kids need to be "free".

Extreme movie violence and explicit sex for the thrill of it is good because it is profitable. Hollywood firmly believes that 24/7 of the sexually salacious and violent TV, movies and music we produce are not harming kids and the culture.

OTOH, we also believe----with the religious fervor of Tammy Faye Baker---- that a single 15-sec commercial will compel tens of millions of Americans into thousands of stores to buy billions of dollars worth of soap, soup, breakfast cereal and cars.

"Party officials said they were concerned about evidence of a cultural gap between Democrats and much of the country. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said that his dealings with Mr. Kerry and his advisers had vividly demonstrated to him the problems the party faces.

I love this story.

First off, "slow in responding to attacks on his war record by Vietnam veterans"...........
well, no, not exactly, they were rather quick to respond:
they slammed and slandered O'Neill and the rest of the Swifties, threatened lawsuits,bookstores,etc... they did EVERYTHING BUT ANSWER the charges. This is the political equivalent of Scott Peterson not taking the stand. Add that to the ongoing souring of the undecideds as they looked at Kerry, continuously embarrassing himself at every turn, while assuring everyone he had a "plan" for everything.
But really, this is going to be SOOOOOOO interesting, to watch the Dems as they cast about for a direction, an identity, a face to present to the public and their lost or shrinking constituency. In his concession/congratulations phone call to Bush, I heard that Kerry lectured him on how we had a divided country and how Bush was now charged with the responsibility to bring us together. (This from a man and a campaign who were all the more viciously unfair the more gentlemenly they were treated.) I can't pretend to be able to predict what the Dems can do as a strategy to avert their inevitable withering away as a Party. They are too practiced in mumbo-jumbo and demagoguery which has already proven to be self-defeating. The idiocy of putting up a candidate like Kerry shows what poor judges of political character they are: it was an act of shooting the moon and shooting themselves in the foot, at the same time. Their hopes are pinned on Hillary, and I think it will be her careful positioning and equally careful and always positive coverage by the MSM over the next 3 years that will be the thing to watch and marvel at. The MSM's big project will be to rehabilitate themselves through a very slow and careful'
promotion of Hillary Clinton. We have to make sure it won't work, and start thinking NOW on how to undermine her, because this is one crafty broad.

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.