So What Happened in That Election, Anyhow? (NYT rips Democrats!)

New York Times ^ | 1/2/05 | ADAM NAGOURNEY

[MJY1288]

What amazes me is that Howard Dean would openly admit that he thinks most Americans are not smart enough to figure out democrats are simply using a different word or description of the same old, same old

[wagglebee]

[Lancey Howard]

Sheesh. They really like to make this into rocket science.

America does not want to be like Sweden. Or France. Or Canada. Or Germany.
Americans do not like European-style, secular socialism. Since that is the primary agenda of today's Democrat Party, hand-in-hand with the belittlement and destruction of the traditional American family and its values, the voters sent the Democrats packing.

If the scumbag Democrats want to keep wringing their hands about it, that's fine with me.
Personally, I hope they NEVER get it.

[The Electrician]

Presidential elections often produce a clear story line, a lesson for winners and losers alike. Not this one, at least not yet, and that is a matter of increasing concern for Democrats who would like to learn from the past

They still don't get it... Ever since at least 1994 the Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to act in the role of the "loyal opposition", not understanding that the first prerequisite for doing so is that you have to be "loyal". Their party is infested with too many hate-America-firsters for that to get any real traction. It wasn't always the case - if you go back far enough in history.

[wagglebee]

Rats are in trouble because their base believes in things that are abhorrent to most Americans. If the Rats swing right - they lose their base.

It's not just that, if the 'Rats even move toward the center Soros and the rest of them will quit giving them money.

[CurlyDave]

"I don't subscribe to any of these notions that we have to examine our conscience as to who we are," Ms. Pelosi said. "We know who we are. We know what we stand for. We'll make it clearer in the non-presidential election year what the differences are between the Democrats and the Republicans."

I believe I am hearing the distant rumblings of yet another off-year congressional pickup by our team.

So far we have had two increases in elections where tradition said we should have lost ground in congress. If Nancy can keep her mouth running for the next two years W could get a sweep.

Just think, if Arnold manages to force special election redistricting in Kali, and the Bush tax cuts keep the economy rolling along, we could pick up 6-8 seats there.

[Soul Seeker]

For example, did Democrats lose because they were seen as lax on "values," which was the early verdict on the Kerry loss, or because they were seen as weak on terrorism?

Is it to nuanced for both reasons to be accurate? I would wager a solid guess most people responded for Bush, and against the Dems, for multiple reasons. Why this is impossible for so many elites that champion "nuance" to understand I can only guess at it. Could be that it is difficult enough to confront they may be out of step on a value that is sacred to them, Such as being anti-war. To admit they are out of step on more than one value of importance to them may be more than they are emotionally equipped to deal with.

But as the new year begins, no such consensus exists among Democrats about why Mr. Kerry was defeated, and the party is locked in a battle of interpretation over just what went wrong.

Yeah, I'm over the amusement following the election returns that resulted in numerous Dem soul introspections in all Liberal outlets. Now this soul searching inspires boredom. Don't get me wrong, their lunacy can be amusing but I'm not interested in reading Dems "finding themselves" on editorial pages anymore. Rather, I want to find their weakness and exploit. My guess is that if pushed they are going to behave as they always do even if their "heads" tell them it may not be wise. We need to prod them to test if this holds true, then we know how to proceed in strategizing to put our agenda in place.

Timothy J. Roemer, a moderate former Indiana congressman running to be Democratic chair, said: "We did not have a very compelling message about how to make Americans feel safer in a post 9/11 world. The message was more about Iraq, where our base voter was, than it was about talking through how, for instance, Truman and President Kennedy made Americans feel safe in the Cold War."

A Dem that sort of gets it. Their vocal base is certainly anti-war, but he is wrong to group the entire base as so. The Dems have a fracture on this issue that led to some crossing over for Bush this election. Also, difficult mention Truman or Kennedy when your hard core base if of the anti-war Vietnam era. They would reject either of those two men if they ran today.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, the new head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, argued that the problem this year was broader than issues like terrorism or values, saying that Democrats never laid out a program of what they would do should they win the White House.

Chuckie's been listening to Rush!

You could describe George Bush's overall campaign message and theme in eight words: 'War in Iraq, tax cuts, no gay marriage,' " Mr. Schumer said. "And these weren't just slogans. For better or for worse, he tried to implement all three.

OMG! this is priceless! he's making some sense!

Think he finally gets that G.W. meant what he said? LOL Of course, he isn't entirely right. G.W. also campaigned on judicial activisim which may include actions of a MASS court but encompasses greater than that one decision. he campaigned on Tort Reform, Tax reform and an overhaul of S.S. All of which have a constiguency.

"I don't subscribe to any of these notions that we have to examine our conscience as to who we are," Ms. Pelosi said. "We know who we are. We know what we stand for. We'll make it clearer in the non-presidential election year what the differences are between the Democrats and the Republicans."

You have my blessing Ms. Pelosi. And, of course, you know who you are but the problem is that we know who you are too.

This was, the argument goes, an election shaped by the fears and memories of Sept. 11, and memories of Mr. Bush's steely performance in the days after the attacks. Voters were averse to changing presidents in what was effectively a time of war - and Mr. Kerry, never a particularly likable candidate, never gave them a reason to do it.

Now they admit him unlikable. What happened to the stories of Kerry being a ladies man women gushed over and his full thick head of hair?

This election didn't play on my fears, at least my fears of G.W. I admit to some trepidation of the idea of an anti-war activist willing to hand over our soveignty to the U.N. rather than personally deal with the "nuisance" of terrorism while simutaneously trying to intimidate people critical of him into silence with threat of lawsuits and power of the W.H. becoming President.

My memories did play a role. I will not forget 9-11, I will not sleep again.

[wagglebee]

That may be the best one I have ever seen!!!

[gidget7]

Exactly! I don't, personally, believe for a second that they don't know perfectly well why they lost! They go on and on about how they don't know yet. Like the gay activists who do the same, and figure if we hear it enough, we will believe them. It's a ploy to play innocent. Much like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but refuses to back down, instead he keeps saying, I didn't do anything wrong, why are you mad at me. I didn't really I didn't.

It's just more lies. No way an entire party is that ignorant or dumb.

[gidget7]

I believe I am hearing the distant rumblings of yet another off-year congressional pickup by our team.


I hope so, I pray it is so. I would love to see Barney, Teddy, and Johnny get voted out. Too much soros money and his kind being sent to them I'm afraid. Hope I am wrong, wouldn't that be nice.

[cicero's_son]

Why is this guy a Democrat?

Because he's not really anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, or anti-abortion. If he were sincere in any of those positions, he couldn't possibly be a part of a national organization that is aggressively promoting all three.

I expect the Democrats will start recruiting and elevationg more "beards" like this Manchin. I just hope the Republicans are clever enough to call these people on their hypocrisy.

[wagglebee]

Think he finally gets that G.W. meant what he said?

The notion of meaning what you say and making campaign promises you intend to follow through on is completely foreign to the left; they have spent decades saying whatever they needed to say to get the votes, it never occurred to them that Bush would follow through on promises and the voters would reward him for it.

[Tall_Texan]

"You could describe George Bush's overall campaign message and theme in eight words: 'War in Iraq, tax cuts, no gay marriage,' " Mr. Schumer said. "And these weren't just slogans.

...and you could have done the same, Chuckie.

Your guy's campaign could have been seven words: "Raise taxes, celebrate immorality, lose the war."

How hard is that, Chuck? I'd be your campaign manager if I wasn't sure your checks would bounce. Sheesh!

[JoeBob]

They say rattlesnake tastes like chicken, so I guess the same must go for Dimmies.

[DeFault User]

...they didn't push back hard enough against what she described as false attacks.

So, screaming, "Liar!, Liar!, Liar!", didn't get it, huh?

Well, they could have put Kerry's Senate record on display. Wasn't he known for sponsoring National Fish Week or something equally as memorable? Or how about that Form 180? That certainly would have shown those Swifties. Yep, that glorious record and that discharge.......uhhh, never mind.

[Howlin]

"We'll make it clearer in the non-presidential election year what the differences are between the Democrats and the Republicans."

That's an interesting comment on her part; evidently she thinks she has a better chance of doing it when nobody is paying attention because it's an off year.

[longtermmemmory]

This is a "yankees loose" healine (appologies to billy joel).

For the NYT the hometeam (or homoteam) will be the DNC.

The democrats lost and will continue to loose because the nation, while divided, is NOT evenly divided. Only 17-19% admit they are modern liberals. This leaves 81-83% who are the opposing majority. 80/20 has never been an even split except in publeek skoul math.

It order for the democrat party to win any elections they have to stop being the democrat party.

If the Republicans have any testicular fortitude they should start to limit the ability of the "D"'s to bring home the federal dollars. The public MUST be educated that voting "D" means being unrepresented by choice.

[goldstategop]

I hope Joe Manchin switches to our party. He will find the Democrats don't want people with his views among them. As for the Democrats themselves - the truth is, they are not honest with themselves about who they are and what they believe in. Its about authenticity and core beliefs. If you have those, people will follow you. And you may get people who don't agree with you to respect your views. If you have neither - well you not not only lose, people don't have a positive reason to follow you and those who don't agree with you have little reason to think you're telling them the truth. The latter encapsulates all the Democrats' problems. And until they figure them out, they're doomed to spend a long time wandering in the political wilderness. It couldn't happen to a more deserving party.

[Arkinsaw]

WITH the exception of a few Democratic outliers in Ohio, few people dispute that the election for president is done and decided: President Bush won and John Kerry lost.

The New York Times just made it onto the DU enemies list.

Presidential elections often produce a clear story line, a lesson for winners and losers alike. Not this one, at least not yet

Only if you refuse to see it.

For example, did Democrats lose because they were seen as lax on "values," which was the early verdict on the Kerry loss, or because they were seen as weak on terrorism?

Have they considered that its both?

"We all have come up with our individual thoughts, but as far as coalescing on what happened - I don't think there's been a determination about what really happened," said Harry Reid, the new Senate Democratic leader. "It's not that easy to figure out."

Only if you don't want to see.

The so-called values issue was the first widely-used explanation for Mr. Kerry's loss, after 22 percent of respondents in exit polls listed "values" as the main factor in their presidential votes.

Which Democrats don't understand.

For a while after Election Day, it was rare to hear a Democrat talking without hearing a mention of God

Which of course, they have no idea how to talk about. Their attempts are flat-out ham-handed.

or the need for the party to learn how to talk about abortion rights and gay marriage.

I have seen their talking heads on tv struggling to explain how supporting gay marriage and abortion are actually Christian values and the Christian thing to do. These attempts will leave Christians open-mouthed in amazement and the talking heads are so ignorant on the matter that they don't even realize that they are harming their cause by this sudden newfound obvious lip-service.

"It's the values - my goodness, it's the values," he said, adding: "But to allow any other party to say that the Democrats aren't for family values, they are not for people who go to church, they are not for people who like to go hunting - that's wrong. For the Democrats to sit back and allow that to happen, is even more wrong."

I doesn't matter what the other party says, because the American people have made the determination for themselves. The Republicans, as a party, are just echoing those determinations for their own political ends. You could cut the tongues out of every Republican talking head and the American people would STILL know that the Democrats do not match their values based solely on what the Democrats themselves say.

But the importance of values is disputed by more than a few Democrats, who obviously would prefer not to follow a plan that might irritate some fairly crucial parts of the base, be they secular Democrats, abortion rights advocates or supporters of gay marriage.

They choose not to see. Its more painful to admit that your positions are the minority than it is to lose.

"Values obviously are important," said Terry McAuliffe, the national Democratic party chairman, whose term expires in February. "But clearly, the overriding issue in this election was terrorism and national security. You don't get to those other issues until you have checked the box on national security."

Thats another reason Terry. But you can fix one all you want and if you don't fix the other, you are still broke.

Timothy J. Roemer, a moderate former Indiana congressman running to be Democratic chair, said: "We did not have a very compelling message about how to make Americans feel safer in a post 9/11 world.

Not only did you not have a COMPELLING message, you had no message. Because your party no longer has the fundamental belief that the US is good. Believing that America is good is absolutely required for ginning up the necessary fervor to defend it properly.

The message was more about Iraq, where our base voter was, than it was about talking through how, for instance, Truman and President Kennedy made Americans feel safe in the Cold War."

John F. Kennedy did not make America feel safe in the Cold War. During his term we had the most critical moment of the Cold War and the most dangerous feeling moment in the Cold War. At that moment, Americans felt less safe than they ever had.....many felt that the missiles would be flying at any moment. But the feeling that John F. Kennedy gave was that America was good, America was right, and that it was worth "bearing any burden" or "paying any price" to defend her and the freedom she represented.

Americans are not cowards, and our own personal safety is nothing compared to the continuation of the nation as a whole. Democrats assumed that the great concern for them to focus on after 911 was "safety". They are dumbfounded that they cannot get traction with it and that Americans reelected a man who took us into direct conflict. They are convinced that they are the "safer" bet. They are. But Americans want to "bear any burden" and "pay any price" to eliminate the threat to the nation as a whole, not elect a party that will cuddle them and make them feel individually safer.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, the new head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, argued that the problem this year was broader than issues like terrorism or values, saying that Democrats never laid out a program of what they would do should they win the White House.

Untrue. Everyone knows exactly what they would do. They would start obeying the cowards in Europe who think that they way to influence evil murderous cultists is to show them your belly so they won't see you as a threat. They would pursue the social policies to appease their left-wing fanatics. They would practice a policy of appeasement both at home and abroad. That is their program. Schumer is actually complaining that they did not properly distract the public with a fake program of intentions.

And there's more. Mr. Reid said Mr. Kerry lost in large part because he did not spend enough time campaigning for rural voters. "We got crushed in rural Nevada," he said.

Time? The more time Kerry spent the lower his poll numbers went. More time on a bed of nails will not make you like it better.

Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, said that Democrats, despite their best efforts, had been outgunned on voter turnout by Republicans and that they didn't push back hard enough against what she described as false attacks.

The American people know the stances of both parties on issues and have a gut feel of who means what. Democrats have better voter turnout actually, but in this election they turned out Republicans with their overreach on gay marriage.

"I don't subscribe to any of these notions that we have to examine our conscience as to who we are,"

And what you are is not a majority.

Ms. Pelosi said. "We know who we are. We know what we stand for. We'll make it clearer in the non-presidential election year what the differences are between the Democrats and the Republicans."

We know the differences. When the differences are clearer, we beat you. When you pretend to be us, you beat us.