Posted on 11/06/2004 2:23:38 PM PST by Westpole
The country was suprised after the mid-term election in 2002 that Republicans swept so many seats. Republicans regained the majority in the senate, increased governorships and representation in state houses. The analysis from the liberal commentators and in particular from the Clinton wing of the Democratic party was that they had not "hit George Bush hard enough". Recall that memories of 9/11 were fresh and most Democratic politicians did hesitate to critize. But with resounding losses the wisedom on the left seemed to be..."hit him" "you can't win unless you distinguish yourself". Shortly after those loses the demos in Congress got very critical of Mr. Bush. And so the next round was not going to be fought on "we are all on the same side" ..the Democratic establishment decided they had to bloody George Bush's nose or lose. But now we see that that strategy didn't work either. The Democrats couldn't win in 2002 being "supportive of the president" and they certainly didn't win when they pulled all the stops to demonize him, the "neo-cons" and everything he did or stand for. The reason for both defeats is simple. The country understood we were under attack. Our enemies rejoice over our divisions. They want us to be divided and disoriented. And our people understand that instinctively. That is why the most effective speach at the Republican Convention was from Zell Miller. That is the issue he pounded when he listed the former candidates who had said they rather lose than give comfort to the enemy. That statement alone drove the Democratic intelligensia crazy because it was true and irrebuttable. And Kerry and the Demos had staked the whole election on a bet they could convince enough people that the aggressive response of George Bush to the 9/11 attack was "a collasal blunder". But people of common values understand the importance of closing ranks when under fire. In his memoirs U. S. Grant tells us he had been very opposed to the Mexican War but said.."once the shooting starts it is much wiser to keep your mouth shut." I seriously doubt there was a strategy the Democrats could have adopted to win. We have never turned out a president during time of war. However by adopting the strategy they did they harmed themselves irreparably in the eyes of those that believe Mr. Kerry gave comfort to the enemy with the attack on Mr. Bush and the entire American effort in the middle east. I wonder if anyone in the Democratic braintrust ever thought about any of this. I wonder if they thought "do we sound like we are cheering the insurgency in Iraq? Does bad news for our troops mean good news for us? For a while it seemed like the insurgency, the French, the UN and the Democratic establishment all were saying the same thing.."George Bush you are a neo-con, oil obessed, decietful and stupid man." No one really wants to say it but it was a stupid strategy. It was historically unprecedented to succeed and if they lost they would be branded as the anti-American party for a very long time.
Good analysis.
Any links to this article. I'd like to see what type of know it all this author is.
If they keep going in the direction - 2006 looks like a "great" year for the Republican party - and I'm wondering which Democratic Senators are coming up for re-election in 2006. I already know Sen. Hill- is -
Also any Republican Senators in need of aid in 2006 - never hurts to get going on helping make sure the trend continues -
just my thoughts -
a cogent analysis
This is my article.. no post to cite. Thanks for the compliments and sorry for the typos.
Ah, it's what we call here a VANITY.
It would have been even more impressive had you posted it prior to November 2nd.
I did post a similar analsis prior to the election. Check my posts..
Not trying to give you a hard time, but why post the same thing again? You could have simply bumped your prior post.
General Grant and I agree. Wonderful analysis.
Sorry, I didn't realize you've been here less than TEN DAYS.
Well written and on point.
The Democrats should have run a straw man this time around given the circumstances. But it didn't; it actually tried to run a candidate to win. Some times you should just fold on a losing hand.
I think it's because the party is run more like a biz these days than anything.
more like a kaieretsu
a conglomerate organization od disparate interests, none needfully having much in common with any other.
I am at a loss to determine what the "core" of the DNC really IS
IS there a core?
Once they are through with devouring their young, they need to do the following, each and every single one of them, as individuals:
1. Read the Constitution, as written, unannotated and without mountains of their favorite distaff case-law.
2. Go and get their hands dirty, doing real work, where success and failure are measured in real empirical terms of right and wrong: does it work or does it not work; does it fit or does it not fit; does it live or does it die; do the customers buy it or reject it; do I have a paycheck or do I not... that sort of thing. I mean they must undergo a LITERAL submersion in practical reality.
3. After two years of surviving by the sweat of their own brows, they should then REREAD the Constitution.
After doing all this, they should sit awhile in thought.
Find their own individual real political centers.
THEN, only then, should they seek others of like mind.
I posit that the results would be startling.
I can predict this about the '08 election: the Republican presidential candidate will be an unknown. The media will make sure he is unknown. The Dem opponent will be a superstar. The MSM will see to it that all the likely Dem candidates get constant, positive attention.
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.