Skip to comments.Democrats Should Regroup, Reach Out to Voters (Remember the RAT Party?)
Posted on 08/29/2005 6:31:08 PM PDT by Libloather
Democrats Should Regroup, Reach Out to Voters
August 30th, 2005
Remember the Democratic Party? No? How about the 2004 presidential election, where their candidate met a decisive loss against the incumbent President Bush? Ring a bell?
Its no real surprise that their current run of bad luck seems to have caused this formerly-reputable party to all but fall off the map.
After news networks and talking heads decided to streamline presidential election coverage down to color-coordination, the branding of blue-state (Virginia not being one of these, FYI) on those that turned their electoral votes to the democratic side has helped to nurse an irrational level of political division. Now, to be a blue-state Democrat one must face having your partys credibility slowly being eroded away as the Bush years progress.
It seems now the typical apolitical American places the Democratic Party in nearly equal status with disparaging terms such as left-wing liberal, extremist or otherwise. This perception polarizes them as possessing principles and plans for the nation that are far removed from that of the typical voter.
Many are starting to wonder aloud: When will the democrats start to move closer towards an equal status with the dominant republicans? Its tough to say for sure when or even if it will happen. Although the arena of ideas and influence in politics is forever changing, there is no question that the current political climate in the United States will make for a tough climb before they can take another swing at winning the top office in the 2008 election.
It bears reminding that the democrats have endured a great deal lately. Not only are they subjugated by minority seating in Congress, they are constantly under pressure from division in their own ranks over issues as varied as stem cell research and finding an agreeable exit strategy for the Iraq war.
Arguably the biggest problem facing the democrats is promoting leaders with whom the American public can readily identify and ultimately vote for. After the 2004 loss, they were nearly rudderless. John Kerry was out of the picture to a certain extent; his national clout tarnished, but still with a Massachusetts senate seat to fall back on. The same could not be said for his running mate, John Edwards, who was not reelected to the Senate after the election, although rumors still abound about Edwards trying again in 2008.
Other democrats the public generally recognizes are Sen. Hillary Clinton, the tentative pick for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president, and Howard Dean, the one-time 2004 front-runner whose overzealous yell in Iowa bafflingly served to sink his campaign. But Dean is, as many Democrats still consider, a solid leader: he was appointed to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee earlier this year.
But how would these leaders fare campaigning against popular Republican powerhouses such as Rudolph Giuliani or Sen. John McCain (both heavy favorites for the 2008 G.O.P. nomination)? It remains to be seen, but the opposition is stiff to say the least.
In order for the democrats to hope for future success, alterations of image and action must occur. Much of the work remains in the plans that the DNC, along with state and local office-holding democrats, will be compelled to enact as election time rolls around once again.
But certain current events may also help to sway voters away from the G.O.P. The United States continuing involvement in Iraq is proving to be a huge thorn in the republicans side; the latest setback being the rejection of a U.S.-backed Iraqi constitution by Sunni Muslim leaders.
When the president returns to D.C. from his five-week vacation he must face approval ratings riding on a downward slope where they currently sit around 36 percent, right around the numbers Richard Nixon was getting during Watergate. This may be the best time for the reclusive Democratic Party to come out of hiding and make their move. By uniting their politics and displaying the key differences between them and leading republicans while emphasizing the improvements they intend to make over the current administration, they can expand their base and win over voters who had, as of last year, all but written them off.
There is still time left to continue to rebuild their images and strengthen their platforms to take the focus off what has gone wrong for them in the past and concentrate on appealing to as many Americans as they can.
Notice - not one mention of their greatest president ever - *Billy Jeff Rodham Clinton...
Democrats regroup by throwing a ritzy Hollywood, red carpet party, followed by seminars by media moguls the next day. The 2-3 days are filled with strategy sessions, meet and greets, and cocktail parties.
Don't forget the condom demonstrations and the fisting workshops...
The Democrats can win in 08 if they follow the following:
1) Dump Hillary
2) Dump Gun Control
3) Come up with a Health Care program that isn't just a big power/cash grab
4) Run someone who is from south of the Mason/Dixon
I Predict they will fail on 3 out of the 4 points........
Sounds like a job for the Irreverent Jessie Jackson.
I thought it was the Whigs who lost to Bush. Maybe I'm getting those two parties confused.
When? When they were standing in the doorways of schoolhouses so black children couldn't get in? When they were arm-in-arm with the Communists? When they were allied with the Viet Cong?
I must have missed the "reputable" part, can we see some of that in my lifetime please?
Nah, I don't think of all Democrats as immoral and decadent... I think of them as demagogues who use immorality and decadence to entrap voters into lifestyles that make independence and morality difficult to achieve.
Most Democrats -- the so-called "rank and file" -- believe in something.
But the party's leadership believes in nothing, stands for nothing, cares for nothing...besides their own power.
Why they lose: ... "Its no real surprise that their current run of bad luck ... "
Blame it on Bush ... or "bad luck". Democrats lose because they are the party of "victims".
Happens to be true, Mr. Baer.
Message to the media: there wasn't anything "baffling" about it. The MSM finally realized Dean was too kooky to beat GW Bush, so they used "The Scream" as an excuse to turn on Dean and bury him. Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, even said this was the case. Oh, the MSM loved Dean's politics, they just hated GW Bush more.
They thought by trumpeting the "moderate war hero" Kerry they could sell this bag of goods to the American people. The problem was, Kerry was neither a war hero, nor was he moderate.
Oh, I can be much more imaginative.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day. It was on the back of a nice SUV and read: A Christian and a Democrat. I just couldn't help but think it pretty awful that you had to advertise the fact that, just because you were a Democrat, it didn't exclude your being a Christian. And that poor dummy driving that truck probably thought it was a positive thing!
I notice he left out abortion, I guess all the Pro-life folks have left the RATs, so everyone left is pro-abortion.
He didn't mention gun-control either, I wonder what page they all seem to be on...........oh, that's right, gun control cost them the 2000 election, so they must be all on the same page as most Americans now, AGAINST gun control.
Tax cuts, no mention of tax cuts, wonder where they are on tax cuts..................
National Security..............hmm, yes that's right, they are together on that, can't have a War on Terror, might end up with prisoners with panties on their heads.........
Otherwise, they are on the path to winning! Like they did recently, ya know, getting 47% of the vote type winning.
A real stunner. And I've no doubt they were fervently both.
But it should make one wonder why one felt one had to advertise it...