Internally, the two parties are very different. The Democrats function like a federation of state parties while the Republicans have always been a top-down organization. This gives the Democrats an edge when they don't control the Executive. Republicans, without the Executive, seem lost. They need a leader to snap them to attention and send them marching in step.
This is sheer snap, right-on-the-target, in-perfect-lens analysis. Short, brutish, and correct.
It is further made clear in how libbies (Dems) approach the issue of WOT and the UN/ICC. And why they are hysterical: "we need everyone to agree to this war". A "multi-lateral" approach; and why they belittle the unilateral. This is also exemplifed in Dem current attempts at "reinvention" -- with one branch of their Coalition of Whining doing the hard left tact while attempting to posture another branch, "The Whining Apparatus", composed of Kerry, Hillary, Billy, as "more moderate". Then there's the hard right within dem party, Lieberman, Miller... and the left wing and "moderates" are beating the tar out of Lieberman, Miller, and because... I think, ultimately, that Dems are trying for a "top down approach" since it seems to have worked so well for the Republicans. What it continues to do, IMHO, is confuse the various branches within the Coalition of the Whining who for soooo many years have been engrained with a different approach and are resenting the "top down" methodology/strategy.
A Democrat will tell you that Al Gore won the national popular vote and the vote in Florida. Bush was selected illegally by a partisan US Supreme Court when his father called in some IOU’s. The election was stolen, plain and simple. Bush lost and took up residence in Al Gore’s big white house.
Dare we mention also that mere days after Mr. Al's flip-flop in re election results and "conceding", Mr. Al and Mz. Hillary published el numerous articles calling for the elimination of the electoral vote. They were pretty desperate to have Al win BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Jesse Jackson already had his "protest at these cities" website up.
The Democratic Party had played a key role in the creation of the United Nations
Off the top of my head: created in 1947 in SAN FRANCISCO.
I like your alliteration of "UNeesians". Very appropro.
Your bulleted points beneath this para:
In 2004, the Democrats nominated a New Englander who was deep in his party’s mainstream but was out of step with the rest of the country. In “reporting for duty”, John Kerry hoped to elide his party’s ideological marginalization, but since his defeat the rest of the party has stridently spoken out, raising disturbing questions:
Shows the Dems knew already they had lost the party core "unifying themes" and ergo put out a Facilitator (Kerry), and not a genuine candidate, in attempts to keep the "dialogue" going or even to start.
Soon there will be at least three parties on the left: the Green Party, the Labor Party and the Reparations Party
Yes, the "groups" within the Coalition of the Whining are brawling over the financial pittances, and who gets center stage. No, I don't mind watching this. It's long overdue. I think, often, here on FR, we see some "conservatives" trying at the UNeesian approach; railing that their very own coalition of whatever should be dictating to the GOP. And that when FReepers support the GOP, they are called "Bushbots". Amuses me everytime I see it in post.
Thank you for referring me to what I consider a very good synopsis of the winds that are blowing. Please do ping me, if and when you author another.
I hadn't noticed that! Very perceptive. First, Clinton sells out his party to the Grifters of K Street to emulate the Republican fundraising apparatus, and now they are opting for a top-down governing model. This won't sell within the party no matter who gets to play the top dog.
...the Dems knew already they had lost the party core "unifying themes" and ergo put out a Facilitator (Kerry), and not a genuine candidate, in attempts to keep the "dialogue" going or even to start.
Again very perceptive. I merely saw Kerry as another representative of New England, that graveyard of American politics. You've delved deeper.
...the "groups" within the Coalition of the Whining are brawling over the financial pittances, and who gets center stage.
Follow the money. Control of the party's fundraising apparatus is the one critical element of this whole mess.
It makes me want to erect a grandstand and sell tickets for the show.
Dean’s accession to the party chair pushed the Democrats too far to the left. Soros was underwriting him, Move On and the entire party.
But for a Democrat to win, he (or she) would have to peel off a significant chunk of Republicans and independents, and occupying the Sensible Center is the only way to do it. Otherwise, it’s McGovern time all over again. Hillary has spent her first term setting herself up as a pragmatist and centrist, no doubt receiving a lot of coaching from her husband who was a master of triangulation.
With Dean pushing the party to the Hard Left, it becomes necessary to replace him, preferably with Harold Ickes, but that would open up a fight that would split the party. Hillary doesn’t need to be the heavy in an internal war to purge the Hard Left. They, after all, are the base. What Hillary needs is to control the purse strings. If she has that, then it doesn’t matter who chairs the party.
The coup is her seduction of Soros. If he’s underwriting Hillary’s effort, that means he has abandoned Move On and Dean, its avatar. It means that Hillary’s shadow party will harvest the unions for money while Dean will harvest the Hard Left. But Ickes will have the power while Dean becomes merely a figurehead.
In politics, always follow the money.