Donkeys in Denial

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Jan 22, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Donkeys in Denial
    Almost three months after the Presidential election, Democrats still have no clue how to take on George Bush
    By Mitch Frank, Time Magazine
    Thursday, Jan. 20, 2005

    Americans have a cherished and hallowed tradition of hating whiners. They see their nation as the home of a bold can-do people, like the pioneers of the old West. George W. Bush understands that sentiment and has tapped into it for two straight presidential elections. Democrats don't seem to understand that. Consider this: On Election Day, 17% of voters told pollsters that the most important quality in a president was strong leadership while another 17% said it was taking clear stands on the issues. More than 80% of both groups—a third of the electorate—voted for Bush, who had mercilessly painted his opponent as a flip-flopper.

    A caveat: Exit polls are iffy samples, and a recent study concluded that the 2004 edition was the most problematic of the past five presidential elections. Still, the broad trends are clear. One of those is that a solid number of people who disagreed with Bush on major issues still voted for him. A quarter of Election Day voters told exit pollsters that they believe same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, but 22% of those voters cast ballots for Bush. A majority of the voters who support civil unions backed Bush. About a third of voters said they believe abortion should be legal in most circumstances yet 38% backed Bush. Strength wins.

    Now Bush is taking the oath of office again and laying the foundation of an ambitious second term agenda. Meanwhile, most Democrats are still trying to figure out why Bush won. That the party is still having this debate so long after the election shows it hasn't learned a thing.

    What bold leadership moves have national Democrats made so far? When Congress convened earlier this month to certify presidential electors and confirm Bush's reelection, House Democrats and California Senator Barbara Boxer challenged Ohio's electoral ballots, forcing a few hours' debate on election reform. They had the noblest intentions, attempting to call attention to election day breakdowns in Ohio and the sad state of election reform since 2000. But as one Republican aide told ABC News, "This is a golden opportunity to remind people that President Bush won and John Kerry lost." Most Americans outside the beltway got the impression that the Democrats couldn't accept the election results. It sounded like whining.

    As noble as the Dems' intentions were, they knew it was a losing battle. If the party is serious about election reform, it first needs to win some elections. It can't get its agenda enacted without taking back the White House and Congress. But party members seem more enthusiastic about noble losing causes then about winning. Several party members say the key to success during the 2nd Bush term is to fight the President tooth and nail on his agenda with every obstructionist technique they have at their disposal, particularly Senate filibusters. That's worked wonders in the past two Congressional elections. Most Americans would rather support politicians who have ideas—even ideas the voters don't completely agree with.

    What should the Democrats be doing now? Proposing ambitious alternatives to the President's agenda, plans that demonstrate the party's principles and vision for the country. Bush has spent weeks sowing the seeds for his Social Security reform plan by telling Americans that the popular entitlement program is on the brink of insolvency and that private investment accounts are the only solution. Democrats have responded by accusing the President of distorting the facts. They may have a point—Economists disagree on whether or not the system is in any real danger. But most voters like Social Security and at the same time feel insecure about its future. The Dems can't just reject Bush's agenda—they need to present their own proposal for guaranteeing its long-term survival. If they don't, Bush will frame the debate for the next year.

    How should they devise this agenda? Party members will have to decide what common principles they share, what matters most to them and look for ways to effectively sell those ideas to voters. Bush wants tax reform? Counter with a plan that actually balances the budget in the next decade. Devise what John Kerry never could—a Democratic vision of how to win the war on terror. Look for a way to halt the out-of-control costs of health care and Medicaid. Democratic governors and mayors—even in the South and mountain West—have had some success in the past four years and have suggestions on how the Dems can look less like the party of the Beltway bureaucracy.

    Obviously any Democratic agenda will have little chance of getting past this House, the Senate and the President's desk. But if the Democrats fail to offer any ideas, they will never give voters a reason to back them. If the Dems keep this up, Bush's biggest challenge in the next four years will be keeping members of his own party in line.
    http://www.time.com/time/columnist/frank/article/0,9565,1018909,00.html
    Mitch Frank is a reporter for TIME magazine on the national desk focusing on politics at the state level.
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,163
    I think that paragraph says it all. Democrats are looking for way to trick the American people. They want to look like they are leaders that they are different. But they cant seem to actually sit down and change anything. The American people dont want to vote for Democrats who simply look different. If the Democrats are going to win any elections they actually need to be different. Stop giving into the wacky fringe who hasnt had an original idea this past 100 years and look to the future. Give up your communist agenda. communism/socialism is dead. Get over it. Start looking to what will make America great. Not just the Democrats. Get the focus off the party and onto the people.
     
  3. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Great find, Adam's Apple. And, as usual, Avatar, you hit the nail right on the head. To all this , I'd like to add that I find Mitch Frank's comments on election reform tragicomic. How anyone can use the terms, "noble" and "Dems' intentions" in the same sentence - let alone with a straight face - is baffling.

    Look at the sorce of election trickery in our lifetimes:

    1960 - Illinois

    1992 - Anyone care to discuss "read my lips"? Classic Democrat lies and backstabbing.

    2000 - Felons and the dead, vote early and often. But, let's not waste a lot of time counting the absentee ballots cast by those useless drains on society - our mlitary.

    2004 - Which party tried to use a Clntonista judge to pervert the vote count in Ohio at the 11th hour? Which party gleefully rode the technicalities inherent in the 527 ruling to grossly unfair advantage - despite warnings from the Republicans that the sword cut both ways? Which party is currently stinking up Washington state?

    Any and all elections - Never forget the monopolistic power enjoyed - until recently - by the glaringly partisan traditional mainstream media. Do you really believe that "Rathergate" was an anomaly? This is the kind of dirty pool the networks have played - and gotten away with - all our lives. The only anomaly is that they got caught this time.

    This is only the tip of the iceberg, my friends. I see no nobility in the Democrat Party - anywhere.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    With the possible exception of Lieberman, you've hit it Musicman.
     
  5. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533


    Agreed, Kathianne. I might not agree with Lieberman, but I wouldn't feel compelled to count my fingers after shaking hands with him - which is more than I can say for most Dems.
     
  6. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,163
    Im not so sure about that. i mean Lieberman is actually one of the decent guys in the Democrat party but im still not sure id say he was noble at all. Sane yes. but having watched him sell himself for the VP nomination in 2000 i am not sure how deserves the noble title.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    If it wasn't for the gore thing, he'd be a hero of mine. I liked him before al, I still like him. love? No.
     
  8. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533


    At the time of his presidency, I considered Carter a decent man, too (I don't anymore - he's become a whore and a hack). Being decent isn't enough - not when you reside in a den of thieves.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    When Jimmy ran, I remembered him from a newsweekly blip. Then I hated him as pres. Then I liked him, now I hate him more the Willie, who at least isn't a two faced. (Now he may have hidden talents, but I choose not to go there.)
     
  10. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    I will always have respect for Joe Lieberman. He was the only Democrat with courage enough to stand up and be counted on the side of decency and respect for the Office of President during Monicagate.
     

Share This Page