Posted on 03/04/2005 5:13:28 PM PST by Lorianne
As things stand now, the only way I can ever imagine a liberal getting into the White House again is as a member of a tour group! _____
Normally, I wouldn't proffer advice to the Democrats, but sometimes political differences have to be set aside in favor of humanitarian concerns. And, as a relatively good Samaritan, I can not witness such abject human misery and not try to lend a helping hand.
As I see it, in the aftermath of the president's re-election, the Democrats have two choices. One, they can disband and try to come back with a new name, the way a certain musician did. (At the very least, they could provoke some media interest if they suddenly answered to The Party Formerly Known as Democrat.) Or, two, they could take my suggestion and revert to the good old days. Back then, the bosses of a few well-oiled machines such as Tammany Hall in New York, Jim Pendergast in Missouri, and Richard Daley and Jake Arvey in Illinois, would retire to the proverbial smoke-filled room, cut a few deals, and settle on a presidential candidate.
Then, the party fell prey to that most insidious of maladies - the reform movement. Overnight, the bubble-headed amateurs were running things. Convention delegates were selected with an eye on gender and racial quotas. Suddenly, the you- know-who's were running the asylum. And, predictably, they started coming up with the likes of McGovern, Mondale, Carter, Dukakis, and Kerry. Candidates, for the most part, that only their mothers could love. Not since the Whigs has a party gone to such lengths to self-destruct.
I mean, who in his right mind in 2004 would have nominated a snobbish Brahmin married to a real life Cruella De Vil? To compound matters, whoever decided that Kerry would campaign as a war hero should be taken out and shot by Terry McAuliffe. If the decision-maker was McAuliffe, himself, so much the better. Really, what could James Carville and the rest of the party's so-called brain trust have been thinking? How could you possibly sell a guy who was a confessed war criminal as a hero? And then, for good measure, they tried to paint Bush as a traitor for not serving in Viet Nam, conveniently forgetting that young liberals, in the hundreds of thousands, dealt with Nam either by running off to Canada, getting sympathetic anti-war shrinks to write notes claiming they were homosexuals, or by getting college deferments.
I, for one, never understood why being in college should have precluded a young man's being called to serve his country. But, then, I also don't get why this same draft- evader thirty-five or forty years later, feels he is entitled to question George Bush's service in the Air National Guard. I guess there's just no statute of limitations when it comes to hypocrisy. Part of the Democrat's problem is the primary system. For a year or so, eight or ten candidates are forced to duke it out, each seeking to prove to the party faithful that only he is the true keeper of the liberal flame. But, comes the general election, and the victorious Leftie awakens with a major political hangover, for he must now try to convince the 75% of the country that despises liberal positions, that he was only joshing, and that he is in spite of his twenty-year voting record --presto changeo! -- a middle of the road moderate. Occasionally, especially when the Republicans nominate a particularly weak candidate, the Democrat wins, almost in spite of himself.
After all, only a political party that had gone off its meds would try to catch Jack Kennedy lightning in a bottle by twice in 16 years placing a Massachusetts left winger at the top of the ticket, and actually expect to win a national election.
As a conservative, I know I'm safe in giving liberals this good, sound advice. After all, if they were smart enough to take it, they'd have been too smart to nominate the smarmy team of Kerry and Edwards…or, rather, Kerry, Kerry and Edwards, as I have no wish to slight Teresa Heinz-Kerry's effect on the final vote count. There is, when all is said and done, a very good reason that the symbol of the party is a jackass.
—(02/04/05)
I love it. A great spoof on Dean's comment. Should be a bumper sticker!
In my opinion, this is 90% of their problem. It is interesting to note that the only Democrat to make the White House since the 70's was chosen without much of a primary battle, because #42 was deemed unbeatable at the time the hats were thrown into the ring.
In my opinion, this is 90% of their problem. It is interesting to note that the only Democrat to make the White House since the 70's was chosen without much of a primary battle, because #42 was deemed unbeatable at the time the hats were thrown into the ring.
Excellent article. Right on target and funny, too! LOL!
ping!
Actually, Clinton had a considerable primary battle. He faced Paul Tsongas who many people thought would be a strong and responsible candidate. Mr. Tsongas stated plainly that he wanted to keep government programs. He stated plainly that we shouldn't have what we won't pay for. He stated plainly that we needed to raise taxes to pay for the programs. Liberals loved this prescription for the country. Clinton also faced another liberal candidate (maybe Jerry Brown) who didn't have a great reputation but was a Democrat favorite. For a long time, I believed that Paul Tsongas would win the nomination. Of the three candidates running, I thought that Clinton was the least likely to be nominated.
At the time, we didn't think that the race would be close because President Bush (41) was considered popular and Ross Perot was getting so much attention. People were distracted and didn't pay as much attention to the primary, but it was a true primary fight. In spite of what some people believe, true primary fights have produced the strongest candidates over the past twenty to thirty years.
Bill
I agree .. and I believe this is the very premise the Clintons are going to use again. Nominee by acclamation prior to the primary.
All I gotta say is - we better be ready - NOW!!
Well, I seemed to remember that Tsongas had a cancer scare or something that put him out of the running, but maybe that was later.
Very few seem to understand that. And it ain't just true at the presidential level.
I'm doing my part by referring them now as the Insurgent Party.
As long as Bush is in the White House, they are acting like Iraqi insurgents so I think the label fits.
I remember the same thing, but the cancer was well into the primary season. By that time, Clinton was leading a bit. He likely would have won the nomination anyway, but the cancer situation was the final straw.
Insurgent Party: That's a great name, may I borrow it?
"I'm doing my part by referring them now as the Insurgent Party."
That's good. I think they should be called the Seditious Party. Of course, some in the Dims call themselves Progressives - - sounds good (and probably fools some of the Sheeple), but IMHO it doesn't represent what they are - -those are the Socialists
By all means. Remember, you're not supposed to challenge their patriotism even as they high-five at every piece of bad news that comes from Iraq and giggle with glee with each bit of economic bad news here. With patriots like them, we sure don't need enemies.
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.