Why it sucks to be a Democrat

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Merlin1047, Nov 7, 2004.

  1. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Pity poor John Kerry. Did I really say that? You bet. Bear with me just a bit because I have to make a small detour in order to arrive at my point.

    This election was the most hotly contested since Kennedy vs Nixon. The Democrats pulled out all the stops. Their voter recruiting drive was the most ambitious I've ever witnessed. They spent money like drunken sailors (no offense NATO). Rich left wingers poured millions upon millions into the campaign in order to defeat George Bush and that turned out to be a very poor investment indeed. Hollywood types lined up for chances to bash the president. The liberal alphabet networks weighed in with their slash and burn tactics - painting a recovering economy as a failure, depicting a successful war in Iraq as a quagmire, dredging up AWOL charges replete with forged documents while doing complimentary fluff pieces about kerry.

    The Democratic campaign was a rousing success in every respect except one. Despite the fact that more liberals went to the polls during this election than any of the past six, it wasn't enough. Conservatives came out of the woodwork from all over the country to trump the liberals in all but their most sacred and devoted venues.

    It is easy to make the post-mortem pronouncement that the Democratic party did not appeal to or represent the values of mainstream America. That is so painfully obvious that it is practically insulting the intelligence of the electorate to state that fact. So the real question is not why did the Democratic party lose this election, but HOW did it come to place itself in such a position that it found itself rejected by fifty nine million American voters.

    Look at the structure of the Democratic party. Unlike Republicans, which are a nominally cohesive and connected group, the Democrats are a crazy-quilt patchwork of conflicting ideologies and single-issue radicals. During this election, the Democratic party was supported by communists, pro-abortion advocates, radical ecologists, aetheist groups, homosexual groups, hispanic groups, black groups, radical feminists, anti-war groups, anti-gun groups, anti-fishing/hunting & PETA groups, socialists, senior citizen groups (AARP), trial lawyers, and vegetarians.

    Each group demanding that it's own special interest be placed center-stage in the Democratic party campaign. Each group competing for prominence, often with interests directly in conflict with other groups within the party. So the Democratic party, stuck with all of these special interest groups, tried to cater to them all. The result was that the party's message became muddled and contradictory.

    Enter John Kerry, the annointed candidate. Not only is he faced with the daunting task of kissing the butts of the myriad factions of his own party, but he somehow has to balance that with an attempt to appeal to centrist conservatives. It's amazing that kerry didn't have a nervous breakdown during this immense juggling act. The fact that he came through unscathed is indicative that the man has few or no issues which he himself cares about. He and the Democratic party tried to be everything to everyone and the result was that they scared the hell out of conservatives. So it was the Democratic party which was responsible for the turnout of huge numbers of conservatives, not the Republican campaign. Basically, by presenting a scattered message of radicalism, the Democrats were the Republican's best friends. Republicans should send a hearty thank you to George Soros. The millions he poured into the campaign through groups like MoveOn.org probably produced more Republican votes than Democratic.

    Is there relief in sight for beleaguered Democrats in the future? Not very likely. A quick look at some of their own leadership reveals a fundamental problem:

    (sorry, lost my link)

    " Democratic Party (DNC) - After the 2002 elections, Democrats control several key governorships (including PA, MI, IL, VA, NJ, NC and WA) and many state legislatures -- but lost control of the US House in 1994, narrowly lost control of the US Senate again in 2002 (but they still hold enough seats to block much legislation), and lost control of the White House in the 2000 elections. While prominent Democrats run the wide gamut from the near democratic-socialist left (Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich and the Congressional Progressive Caucus) and traditional liberals (Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry) to the center-right (Joe Lieberman, the Congressional Blue Dog Coalition and the New Democrat Network) to the GOP-style conservative right (Charlie Stenholm and Gene Taylor), most fall somewhere into the pragmatic Democratic Leadership Council's "centrist" moderate-to-liberal style (Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle). "

    The leadership of the Democratic party is as split as its membership. During this election, Democrats had their universal hatred of George Bush to unite them. What will they use as their lightning rod in the next election when they no longer have George Bush to demonize? What issues will unite them in sufficient numbers to claim the White House?

    The sad truth is that Democrats will probably be in a long decline because they cannot present a unified and cohesive message to the electorate. Having constructed itself out of a collage of single-issue radical groups, the Democratic party is now in the quandary of what to do with them. If the party decides to adopt a centrist message more acceptable to the voters, it is likely to alienate most, if not all of the fringe groups which currently comprise the party's base. So while the party will gain centrist support, it will lose the support of the lunatic fringe which currently comprises much of their number. Where will Democrats be if they can no longer rely on sequined Hollywood mouthpieces to shill for them? What will the Democratic party do without the likes of Rather or Moore to run interference for them in the media?

    So today's Democratic party resembles a Frankenstein monster, constructed out of bits and pieces of various radical groups, lurching about in total confusion and mouthing utterances incomprehensible to the majority of Americans.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,235
    Thanks Received:
    7,841
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,798
    I'm tellin' ya Merlin... you really need an op-ed column in some daily, or an opinion page in a weekend issue of something.

    You're good, and not just because I agree with what seems everything you say. I've yet to disagree with you, but even then, you're so articulate and convincing, I'd have to think before I did.

    See that's what seperates me from the bullypulits. I "think" when I read something I disagree with, to take a good look at it to see if maybe I'm wrong. I doubt pulit has "thought" about ANYTHING he reads here. He's too busy dredging up whatever radical leftist zealot feed he can from the Devil only knows where.

    My conclusion... "intelligent, thinking" people are predominantely conservative. The less than fortunate intellectually are predominately liberal, and letting someone else do their thinking for them is their main fault.
     
  3. UsaPride
    Offline

    UsaPride Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,939
    Thanks Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +198
    I agree!! :D
     
  4. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Thank you both for the vote of confidence. The fact is that I have spent much of my professional life writing. The sad part is that all of it has been devoted to student training literature, SOPs and regulations. Not exactly literary stuff. Sometimes you have to be so careful in choosing your words and constructing sentences that it makes me consider :alco: or :duh3: .
     
  5. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    :rotflmao:

    Hoooo boy. First time I've teared while I laughed in weeks.. thanks Pale
     
  6. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,235
    Thanks Received:
    7,841
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,798
    Not a problem naked. It's always good when you can laugh at yourself.
     
  7. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

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

    Add my vote as well! Many's the time I've told Joz, "Merlin's got to be a smart guy - he agrees with me on so many things!" :happy2:

    Seriously, I'm glad you're on board!
     
  8. wolvie20m
    Offline

    wolvie20m Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    643
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Seattle, Wa
    Ratings:
    +26
    USMB Editoral perhaps.
     
  9. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    I'd like to question your logic in pronouncing the death of the Democratic party. Your argument makes it sound like America voted Dubya back into office by a wide margine. 3% is not a wide margine. And Johny Kerry "appealed to the values" of 49% of the voting population. A gap of 3.5 million voters certainly sounds like a lot, but historically, its a close race. And its the first presidential popular vote won by the Republicans in 16 years.

    This election was won on account of terrorism, not "values".
     
  10. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

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


    Of course, it's entirely possible that the threat of terrorism brought people's values into sharper focus.

    And, this was also the first presidential election where a candidate got over 50% of the vote in 16 years. That, by itself, says something.
     

Share This Page