Skip to comments.The Democrat Party -- 1828* - 2006 -- R.I.P.
Posted on 08/09/2006 10:40:08 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
The Democrat Party died yesterday in Hartford, Connecticut. Present when this venerable institution breathed its last were a minority of the Democrats in the Nutmeg State. The Party was the child of the Republican-Democrat Party, and the Anti-Federalist Party. It leaves no known descendants. However, political parties sometimes spawn children many years after their deaths.
Is that verdict too harsh? The leaders of the Democrat Party in Washington, New York, and elsewhere, are not admitting even to a serious illness. Its difficult to conduct a proper Irish wake when on-lookers insist on prodding the deceased to sing and dance.
These major political parties have held great power usually including the Presidency and control of one or both Houses of Congress only to disappear from the political stage, remembered in history books that no one reads any more: The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, the Republican-Democrats....
Lets review. The Democrats hold Jefferson-Jackson Dinners annually, claiming Jefferson as their progenitor. Crack open a history book. Read Jeffersons First Inaugural Address. He founded the Republican-Democrat Party, which existed only during his two terms as President. Not only was he not a Democrat, he would have run screaming into the night rather than accept the levels of national power and taxation that modern Democrat espouse.
The Whigs, the Union Democrats, and the Liberal Republican Parties are also in the political graveyard, along with lesser-known cousins like the Anti-Masonic Party (held the first national political convention), the Know-Nothings, and the Progressives (the actual party which ran Teddy Roosevelt in 1912).
Since most reporters are grossly ignorant of American political history, they are unaware that political parties have often died, and others were born in their place. Not knowing that, theyre also unaware of the common cause of such political death. It happens when any party gets permanently crosswise from the American people on a critical issue. The Democrat Party has just crossed that divide.
Mind you, I am not making a brief for Joe Lieberman, personally. I liked and respected him when we were classmates at Yale, and when we worked together on The Yale Daily News. I supported him financially when he ran defeated Lowell Weicker for Senate. I lost all respect for Joe when he chose his party over his country, backing away from the Clinton Impeachment. (Because I thought Joe thoroughly honest, Id written six months prior that I expected him to be the honest Senator as Goldwater was concerning President Nixon a quarter century before.)
But, when Joe came to that unique point where he alone could influence American history, for better or worse, Joe chose worse. No, I am not saying that the Democrat Party is dead because it failed to renominate Joe Lieberman for Senate from Connecticut. Im saying the Party is dead because of who it did nominate, and how, for that slot.
Ned Lamont was the choice of the Connecticut Democrats. Hes a wealthy man who bought his nomination. This is a sad but spreading phenomenon in both parties. One reason I tend to distrust filthy-rich people who buy their way into office regardless of their politics or party is that they are disconnected from real life.
For instance, Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey simply forgave a half-million dollar mortgage on a house he bought for a lady friend. Since time immemorial, men have given gifts to women And it is true that Governor Corzines one-time bed mate had the additional advantage of being head of a large public service union. Still, anyone who can drop half a million dollars without blinking, for sex, politics, or both, is not living in the same world as I, or almost anyone I know.
Such people simply are not touched by worry about paying taxes, putting up with government regulation, or facing the myriad of real issues of real people. That brings us back to Ned Lamont. A prime mover in putting him into office was MoveOn.org. Rather than describe that outfit, I encourage every reader to go to their website. Read a sample of their policies; decide for yourself whether they are barking mad moonbats. While youre at it, read up on George Soros, the eminence grise behind MoveOn, and various other financial puppet masters.
On foreign policy, Lamont follows former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who in turn is Neville Chamberlain in drag. We are in a war. The war will to continue and perhaps get worse until America takes the lead worldwide, and does what is necessary to win that war. We can only hope the price for Lamonts politics will be lower than the 50 million who died for Neville Chamberlains politics.
Does this assessment change, if Joe Lieberman gets elected as an independent come November? Not in the least. The mere nomination of Lamont shows the cut-and-run Murtha disease has now infected more than half of the Democrat Party. The only remaining questions are, how much time will it take, and how many tens of thousands, or millions of Americans, most of them civilians, will have to die before the Democrat Party as it now exists is actually buried in the history books. Only then can a more honest and competent party take its place as has happened so often before in American history.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
- 30 -
* Note to editors who might question the 1828 date. In 1824, four candidates ran as Democrats including Jackson who placed first without a majority, and John Quincy Adams, who placed second but won in the House of Representatives. There were two other candidates, both Democrats. In short, the Democrat Party did not make a nomination in 1824. In 1828, Jackson did become the (first) presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is a lawyer specializing in constitutional law, who may again be a candidate for Congress in the 11th District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
John / Billybob
The Kook-Fringe Party has been born. A recent poll showed that a third of Americans think the government had something to do with 9-11, so they have their base.
Surely this mindset is way off on the margin.
We're going to quit! We're going to quit! RAH! RAH! RAH!
"Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England."
Ronald Reagan "The Speech" - 1964
Sure you don't want to move to Sugarland and run in the 22nd district? /chuckle
I like filthy rich people. They are not going to steal my car, murder me, etc. Plus, they or someone in their family probably did something really good to get wealthy in the first place. They also pay about 10 times or more the taxes that I pay, they provide more jobs, etc. Fithy rich is better than the alternative, poor people who are often stupid, and middle class people who know almost nothing about macro issues.
I like GH bush, GW bush, Arnold, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Bill Frist, Pete Dupont, Steve Forbes, Tiger Woods, Charles Barkely, the late John Heinz, Pete DuPont, etc.
The Kennedys I can do without along with the Hollywood rich, but mostly the rich are the cream of our society.
I don't like the way the Iraq war is going.
Unfortunately, the muslims have convinced me that they must be defeated, no matter what the cost, no matter what the price (churchill I think referring to the nazis).
I guess this makes Bill Clinton a latter-day Whig? He'd probably like to go down in history as the "Last Democrat President."
"That brings us back to Ned Lamont. A prime mover in putting him into office was MoveOn.org."
Lamont isn't in office yet.
« Gloating Over Democrats Self Destruction
Chad Vader, Episode Two »
Who is Ned Lamont?
Politics, Harvard, Left Think, Democrats, 2006 Elections, Joseph Lieberman, Phillips Exeter Academy, Corliss Lamont
I knew he was a commie, of course. But not until I read Martin Peretz, in the Wall Street Journal, did I realise that he is an hereditary commie of impeccable red-diaper origins: old money, with Exeter, Harvard, and Stalin as family traditions.
Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding single-issue peace candidates, and the one in Connecticut, like several in the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and almost entirely because he can. Its really quite remarkable how someone like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of having arrived up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking them to support him.
I think the idea of occupation and rebuilding is the part we're going to have to forget. From now on we simply bomb them back to the stone age. I mean we roll out every heavy bomber in the inventory for Iran, Syria etc
Patriotic people can differ on the best way to secure vital interests and debate whether we're overextended or underextended- but there is a time when a nation has to take a stand.
Should have added the requisite apologies to Mr. Chamberlain.
Unfortunately polls show if the election were held today, Democrats would probably take a majority in the Senate. If you can believe polls. In any case those who are proclaiming the death of the Democrat party are being a tad premature, sad to say.
Ken Lay was filthy rich. O. J. Simpson was filthy rich. George Soros is filthy rich.
Shall I continue down the list?
Democrats: The party of the working man - like Michael Moore, Bono, Steven Spielburg. You know, the poor low class slobs that can never seem to get a break...
For the most accurate appraisal of the congressional elections in November, I refer you to Michael Barone. He has travelled to and well knows every congressional district in the nation. I heard him say (albeit a couple months ago) that nothing he has observed in his travels supports a democrat majority in either chamber.
"In any case those who are proclaiming the death of the Democrat party are being a tad premature, sad to say."
I think the big question is why should the PUBS continue in the majority? What have they accomplished?
everyone in my list was a politician or an aspiring politician except for tiger woods.
however, if you pick 100 filthy rich at random and do the same for the middle and lower classes, I will take the filthy rich.
do you know why the media highlights any bad thing a rich person does ? It is because it is unusual and that makes in news.
Barone is indeed great. When I met him at CPAC a few years ago he recognized my last name and said it was the same name as a former mayor of my city, who served in the 1950s! I told him the mayor was a distant relative. Michael is a walking encyclopedia of political and election knowledge.
He is better than Charlie Cook, who didn't even know about Sen Prescott Bush's electoral record when I asked him about it. Said he wasn't from CT so he wouldn't know about CT elections. I was stunned. I should have told him he was no Michael Barone. ;-)
So do I.
Let it be said that Greenwich (Lamont's hometown) voted for Bush twice, as did New Canaan (Ann Coulter's very wealthy hometown), Darien, and Ridgefield.
Meanwhile those "salt of the earth blue collar Democrats" in West Haven, New Britain, New London, Middletown and Meriden continue to vote for the likes of Rose Delauro, Gore, and Kerry. Would be interesting to see how they voted in the primary, however.
Here here. I couln't agree more. EXCELLENT commentary. :)
Indeed. Does that entitle them to public office? Certainly not. But should they be hated or despised becase they're rich? Nope. They pay most of the taxes. And that hate is one of the things that is so wrong with this new Libocrat party. Hate the wealthy and spread class envy to create the Socialist States of America. That is what the old dead Democrat party is now and that's all they care about. And I have no doubt they'd gladly see millions of Americans dead and buried by war or disaster if it would get them back in power. I have no doubt at all. They kill their babies with nary a glance, why wouldn't they allow the deaths of grown opposition if it got their power back? Dark and sinister and depressing but I believe there is adequate evidence the past 30 years to back up my belief.
Actually the traditional Democrats have invaded the body of the Republican Party and are progressively taking it to the left. They have reassigned the color red to the formerly traditional blue as part of the gradual re-branding.
The new party to be born will be a conservative party on the right. Parties change over time, but people don't. There is a growing need for a conservative party to represent us.
So, tell me again, why is the Dem party dead? Because Ned Lamont bought his nomination, that makes them crosswise from the American people?
I'd have thought that if there was a chance, it was more because they're moving leftward too quickly and too openly. Not that any of the ordinary guys I know who vote Dem seem to have much awareness of that.
However, I hope your assessment is correct.
How long will we wait for tat to happen? Or should we boot the moderates and let THEM form a new party.
And gas prices wouldn't be so high if we were building more refinaries, which Democrats oppose.
If we were using shale oil technology, which democrats oppose.
If we were building more nuke and clean coal power plants to reduce our need for imported oil, which Democrats oppose.
If we were drilling in ANWR, which would exceed the supply provided by the Prudhoe Bay supply, which Democrats oppose.
If we were using more wind power, like Californias wind farms that sit idle, which would reduce our need for oil for electricity production, and that oil could be added to oil for automobile supply, which Democrats oppose because some blind birds don't see them.
Or if we didn't force the U.S. oil companies to make over 120 DIFFERENT blends of unleaded and diesel gasoline, which adds at least $1.50 to the cost per gallon. The environmental lobby is MOST responsible for the price of gas. State and Federal tax per gallon is .40 to .50 cents per gallon. The average oil company profit per gallon is only about a nickel to a dime PER GALLON, compared ot that $1.50 or more per gallon it costs having to refine, store, transport, and keep seperate all those different blends of gas for different states. Senator Allen is pushing legislation which would eliminate over 100 of those blends from the market, allowing the oil companies to make just some of the cleaner burning ones, which would still operate on all vehicles still on the road today, that would drop the price per gallon by nearly half as soon as it's fully in place because the oil companies will be freed of BILLIONS of dollars per year in extra expense. But Democrats oppose it.
So the high gas prices are 100% the fault of perfectly good common sense enviromentally friendly legislation that the liberal Democrats, even as a minority, are able to block, because of their liberal media lap dogs. If anything, the liberal opposition to any kind of legislation that would incrase supply will be what effects the election. I believe that more Americans know the truth behind who is at fault for gas prices than is ever admitted in the media. It isn't the Republicans. :) That's just my opinion though.
Anytime I hear someone I know who is a Democrat complaining about high gas prices, I tell them we should build nuke and clean coal plants, use wind technology, drill in ANWR, and build more refinaries, and they always say "YEAH! That would help!" And then I tell them to call their Democrats they keep voting for and tell them to quit blocking the legislation that would make that happen.
I totally know what you're saying, but I think the gas price backlash will not be against Republicans, because it's clearly not the Pubs who block legislation that would ease the price and increase supply and decrease demand, and any half way intelligend voter will know that thanks to the blogs, and radio and emails and FOX news. :)
The left usually operate as parasites, hiding within hosts, always taking over something that once was good and sucking it dry. Now that we have them they're near impossible to shake. How many good words, such as liberal itself, have they hijacked and destroyed? How many colors do they hide behind? How many once great nations, businesses, and institutions have gone bankrupt from their selfish exploitation? I'm glad freerepublic zots them however they are relentless and may either take over or shut down this website someday.
Good post. Bump
The Democratic Party died in 1968 with the rejection of the New Deal/Great Society. With that rejection, the old Democratic coalition of the mid-20th Century came unglued. What it morphed into was the New Democrat Party, which stands for nothing, but is an amalgamation of amoral relativists, labor goons, crackheads, perverts, power lusters, malcontents, baby-killers, nihilists, appeasers, shiftless "victims", sociopaths, race-baiters, radical atheists, journalists, and other ne'er-do-wells of assorted social pathologies. And it represents about 48% of the electorate.
We've been around here long enough to know that the hildabeaste, if elected to POTUS, will definitely crash this beautiful brainchild of Jim Robinson in a heartbeat.
Many of us would also probably be arrested!
Great article, John!...
Everyone chooses their occupation or profession based on their ability and desire to satisfy themselves and the people they care about. Most simply take the first job that will pay enough money to keep the respect of their family. Professionals prepare systematically to do something more than that. Journalists go into journalism to be part of a profession which is at the top of the pecking order. First and foremost, journalism promotes the idea that journalism is the most important profession. And that implies pecking at all the other chickens in the barnyard.
And so on. In general, anyone who aspires to respect based on doing things, and who is a natural for membership in the Republican Party, is a natural target of journalism.
- Water is so important that if somebody shuts someone else's operation down they are said to have "shut his water off." Does someone take their importance by providing good water to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the possibility of quality degradation in the water supply, and about how expensive water is. Peck.
- Everyone needs gasoline and electricity. Does someone take their importance by providing energy to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the environmental and international political impact of producing energy, and about how expensive energy is. Peck.
- Everyone needs, or will need, health care. Does someone take their importance by providing health care to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the reliability and expense of health care. Peck.
- The nation needs police and military. Does someone take their importance by providing security to the public and the nation? Journalism's reaction is to question whether they do their job adequately without brutality. Peck.
Who does journalism not peck? Only those who sell out any independence from the idea that journalism is the only thing that matters. Those people, it calls "liberals." Or "progressives." Or whatever high-sounding label they prefer. Which is why people who are rich enough, tend to buy off journalism by taking on journalism's political coloration. Especially, but far from exclusively, those who inherited their money.
Ping to my #42.
Great analysis Congressman. I agree that Lieberman's party has wandered into the desert without a pillar of smoke or fire to guide them.
When I heard about Lieberman, I thought the Democrats had lost it. To abandon the central part of their party in this time of terrorism is simply insane.
I lile the way you talk--and I like what you say. Harold Ford the junior must go down... too many socialists already in the senate.
Don't be too sure that the dim party is finished! The mad-leftists are very powerful and rich. They will stop at nothing to make the USA a communist paradise.
I think you're right. The fringe is taking over the dems - these folks think it's 1965 and the "kids" are all behind them... Ain't no kids - boomers grew up - and more are becoming conservative every day...
"The Democrat Party died yesterday in Hartford, Connecticut."
I would agree with you that the current Democrat party is dying - or splitting into two as it did before the late unpleasantness of the War between the States... Then, as now is cannot paper-over or sustain the policy dichotomy of either slavery/anti-slavery or National security/National isolationism. The Lieberman/Lamont contest just highlighted that fundamental divide, however my personal opinion is that it will takes two more Presidential election defeats before that party takes the road blazed by the Federalists.
"These major political parties have held great power usually including the Presidency and control of one or both Houses of Congress only to disappear from the political stage, remembered in history books that no one reads any more: The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, the Republican-Democrats...."
I would differ just a bit on the history of "major" political parties in the history of the United States. By my count there have been five major political parties, with a few more influential minor parties to boot. Still hard to believe that James Monroe was elected to a second term with no opposition.
There have been five major political parties in the history of the United States, the Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans, the Democrats, the Whigs and the Republicans. Each of these major parties has in at least one Congress controlled the House, Senate and Presidency concurrently. This is what has defined them as major parties...
What say you?