Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/04/2002 9:23:51 AM PST by wcdukenfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: wcdukenfield
They should do a Mussolini on his sorry a$$..
2 posted on 12/04/2002 9:25:47 AM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wcdukenfield
Klinton is the turd that won't flush. As long as he and Hitlery are involved in the DNC, the DemonRats' ship will continue to take on water.
3 posted on 12/04/2002 9:27:07 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wcdukenfield

4 posted on 12/04/2002 9:30:52 AM PST by South40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wcdukenfield
Bush was "bitingly partisan," but Clinton "drew a standing ovation." Notice the Post's even-handed treatment? Of course, I am sure there was nothing at all "partisan," much less "bitingly partisan," in Clinton's speeches.
8 posted on 12/04/2002 9:57:24 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wcdukenfield
Bill Clinton was a key architect of this Democrat debacle. He helped pick candidates, raised money, campaigned, and was involved in the party's strategy. The Democrats also ran on his issues. They argued for less defense spending, temporary tax cuts, the status quo for Social Security, a massive Medicare-based prescription drug program, and deferment to the United Nations on Iraq. The Democrats also unleashed the Clintonian tactics of race-baiting, class warfare, and fear-mongering aimed at the young and the elderly and, in some cases, character assassination. This all failed miserably. And now Clinton is desperately attempting to spin, as if he had no role in any of this. Now Clinton claims the Democrats lost because they didn't campaign as strong advocates of national security, they didn't focus enough on the economy, they lacked unity and a clear message, they weren't tough enough, and so forth. And the mainstream media is lapping it up like thirsty kittens. If the Democrats have any hope of regaining power, they need regime change. That means ousting Clinton as the de facto leader of their party.

SHHHHH! They might hear you.
9 posted on 12/04/2002 10:16:50 AM PST by polemikos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wcdukenfield

I think the "regime change" happens naturally as we approach the 2004 elections and a new Democratic standard-bearer appears. Until then, Clinton is likely to remain a consensus party leader, mostly because everyone understands that he's on the way out.

No one who carries a very big bat in the Democratic party wants to mess with this right now, because doing so might upset the balance among the various 2004 contenders. You'll have Daschle opposing anybody who might help Kerry, Kerry opposing anybody who might help Gephardt, and so on. So they leave Clinton and McAuliffe in place; they are the devils we know. The only thing that could upset that is if Hillary starts making a move, in which case we will see a real hammer-and-tongs struggle over the DNC chairmanship.

What's fascinating about this analysis is that it suggests that Clinton's "DLC" approach, while effective for him personally, has been a disaster for the party. Others will see that as well, and the conclusion they will draw from it is that the party should turn left, away from the DLC 'moderates' and toward the serious lefties like Pelosi. Most of us think that will result in a train wreck, but if you were a Democrat, what else could you think? Clinton's "moderation" sure hasn't worked, at least not for anyone except Clinton.

The wild card in all this is Gore. If Gore had a brain in his head, he would offer to stand down from the 2004 contest and serve as DNC chairman. His big problem is that he wants to be something, but the tea leaves are spelling out "the ash heap for you" if he continues down his present path. He might be perceived as a suitable, and reasonably neutral, replacement for Clinton's stooge at the DNC.

It is probably starting to dawn on Hillary that her strategy of waiting until 2008 is highly dependent on maintaining control of the party apparatus for that long, and that the intervention of a presidential candidate in 2004 could easily upset that. Whoever it turns out to be will get to name a new DNC chairman, will populate the place with his own stooges, and will most likely remain as the new head of the party even if the Democrats lose. That could put Hillary in a spot where she can't get back in, and I wonder if that isn't going to make her start thinking "it's now or never."


13 posted on 12/04/2002 12:40:40 PM PST by Nick Danger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wcdukenfield
Course the Democrats are ruled by a strongman. I don't feel sorry for them however. Its who they chose to make their bed with and now its time for them to sleep in it.
16 posted on 12/04/2002 1:57:16 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson