GOP's Momentum Leaves Democrats Unsure How to React

Omaha.com ^ | May 30, 2003 | LLEWELLYN KING

[GiovannaNicoletta]

WASHINGTON - They mutter, they grumble and sometimes they give way to almost incandescent rage. Yet they feel voiceless and leaderless.

No, they are not a minority in Iraq, nor French wine producers. They are the Democratic Party intelligentsia in Washington.

I have been exposed to a lot of them lately, and they give breadth and depth to the phrase "unhappy campers."

These Democrats feel that the famously liberal media have gone missing; that the party cannot find a strong, declarative voice among its congressional leaders; and that the Democratic National Committee, under Terry MacAuliffe, is ineffectual - that it whines but does not fight.

Their list of grievances with the Bush administration is as long as their sense of impotence is real. Mention the nine Democratic candidates for president, and they groan. In fact, having studied them, the Democratic intelligentsia can tell you why each one of them would be defeated by George W. Bush.

They brighten at the mention of an undeclared outsider like retired Gen. Wesley Clark. But they cannot conceive of a mechanism to bring in an outsider.

At one cocktail party, the group was enlivened only by the thought that eventually Bush would be overtaken by events, demolished by a self-inflicted wound. But the Democratic thoughtful are tempered in predicting catastrophe because it might involve wishing ill to the United States. As they are patriots, that is not their way.

These Democrats are angry with Bush over profoundly philosophical issues - issues they see as being above and beyond the normal cut-and-thrust of politics. These include the pre-emptive war against Iraq; the failure of the military to locate weapons of mass destruction; the administration's hostility to Europe; the failure to restore order and to reconstruct Afghanistan; the treatment of unindicted, suspected terrorists; and the perceived violation of civil liberties by the Department of Justice.

As much as the Democratic intelligentsia is angered by the administration, it is perplexed by the enduring public approval of Bush. Deep down, these Democratic thinkers believe that the president will win a second term and that what they believe is a Republican-led wrecking crew will continue with historic changes at home and abroad.

They see the Bush policies ending not in a glorious realignment of the world but in a world united in its hatred of an isolated United States that has betrayed its own values.

However, among this group of Democrats, there is no idea of how to stop the Bush juggernaut. They have no faith in their party structure or its leaders. They worry that the party will become known not for its Clinton-era centrism but for its extreme and noisy left wing - to them epitomized by the Rev. Al Sharpton and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. These, they feel, are the people who will draw the whole party into disrepute.

Worse, they feel the Democratic Party will not raise enough money to fight the next presidential election because of its tarnished image and the reluctance of big donors to support hopeless candidates.

If you see the president as a man riding a tiger that he uncaged, as these Democrats do, it is more than galling to note that the public has a different vision; that the public sees Bush as a heroic figure, spreading American virtue and values throughout the world.

Some of the Democratic bitterness is not directed at the administration but at the apparent implosion of the Democratic Party and the lack of strong, clear voices on Capitol Hill.

The Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, is liked but is thought to have the political weight of helium. Likewise Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, is not seen as having the gravitas for the job.

Who are these disgruntled Democrats? They are lawyers, economists, former ambassadors, retired military officers and Clinton and Carter appointees. They believe that the neoconservatives, who have orchestrated the Bush agenda, are leading the nation into an abyss, but they are well aware that they have no one to articulate the trouble they see.

They may take heart if they reflect on the sorry fortunes of the British Labor Party in the days of Conservative supremacy, before an unlikely white knight, in the person of Tony Blair, rode into London. The rest, as they say, is history.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Its as if the eight years these people had the White House never happened.

These include the pre-emptive war against Iraq; the failure of the military to locate weapons of mass destruction; the administration's hostility to Europe; the failure to restore order and to reconstruct Afghanistan; the treatment of unindicted, suspected terrorists; and the perceived violation of civil liberties by the Department of Justice.

For EIGHT YEARS the Clintonistas had opportunity after opportunity to deal with terrorist killers as 415 Americans were murdered on their watch and for eight years they did nothing. Nothing! And now they stand firmly against the man who is attempting to protect this country from the monsters that the Democrats tolerated, ran from, and emboldened.

Not only do we have to fight Islamic terrorism, but socialist Democrat terrorism as well. These people attempt to stand in the way of the safety and well-being of this country, have established themselves as an ongoing threat, and must be fought just as we fight Jihadists. The Democrats are the Jihadists for socialism, tyranny and totalitarian government. They must be defeated.

[Tijeras_Slim]

give way to almost incandescent rage

This is one of the characteristics of pathological narcissism, a disease that X42 has inflicted on both the RAT party and significant sections of the population.

[Nat Turner]

Its NATIONAL SECURITY STUPID....

LOL

[SpartacusII]

But the Democratic thoughtful are tempered in predicting catastrophe because it might involve wishing ill to the United States. As they are patriots, that is not their way.

Pure BS!

[dwilli]

GOP's Momentum Leaves Democrats Unsure How to React. Waving a white flag might be a solution.

[ClearCase_guy]

Typo in the headline. It should read:

"Lack of Ideas Leaves Democrats Unsure How to React"

[jocon307]

"[T]he Democratic National Committee, under Terry MacAuliffe, is ineffectual..."

I knew these idiots were doomed when Clinton put this goon in charge, and I knew they were doubly doomed when he stayed in place after their rout in the last election.

Their atitude of no-accountabiltiy, and affirmative action for the crooked and corrupt has finally come full circle to destabilize their own party.

Just keep doing what you're doing, that's my advice.

[LS]

After the War of 1812, which the Federalists opposed as deeply as the Democrats opposed the Iraq war, the Federalists shriveled up and blew away, never to return.

A new party, eventually called the "Democrats" did rise up to replace it on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but the point is that PARTIES DO DIE, they DO GO AWAY when their message is no longer relevant.

Despite what Rush said, I think the modern Democratic Party is in deep trouble. Its true message is ONLY being delivered by the Greens, and that is a message most Americans reject, including many of the Democratic base.

I'm not predicting this, but it would not surprise me to see a fracture between the "blue dog" democrats moving into the GOP once and for all, and the whackos going over to the Greens, disintegrating the "new democrat" party of Clinton.

[summer]

Interesting article, especially this part:

They brighten at the mention of an undeclared outsider like retired Gen. Wesley Clark. But they cannot conceive of a mechanism to bring in an outsider.

Now, what the following mean? "...cannot conceive of a mechanism to bring in an outsider." Does the outsider want to come in or not? Sounds like a man who is a general should be able to figure out how to come in if he really wanted to, and the party need not waste its time trying to find a "mechanism" to do it. Perhaps the truth is the general does not want to come in as a candidate -- for all the many reasons listed in the article about the lackluster Dem Party....

[summer]

Interesting article, especially this part:

They brighten at the mention of an undeclared outsider like retired Gen. Wesley Clark. But they cannot conceive of a mechanism to bring in an outsider.

Now, what does the following mean? "...cannot conceive of a mechanism to bring in an outsider." Does the outsider want to come in or not? Sounds like a man who is a general should be able to figure out how to come in if he really wanted to, and the party need not waste its time trying to find a "mechanism" to do it. Perhaps the truth is the general does not want to come in as a candidate -- for all the many reasons listed in the article about the lackluster Dem Party....

[summer]

Re your post #5 - LOL... the Dem base thinks that is exactly what Dem Party leaders already do, each and every day.

[katykelly]

Clinton-era centrism? barf

[summer]

Re your post #8 - I agree with you.

[GWB00]

blue dog" democrats moving into the GOP once and for all, and the whackos going over to the Greens, disintegrating the "new democrat" party of Clinton.

I think this already happening. Just look at what is going on in Kentucky, the Republicans have a chance to sweep the State

Also, there are a lot of defections going on at lower levels of elective offices in the South

These things take time and they are a slow evolution. IF the Republics get some more bone in their back and stay to their priciples, we could see a real majority party for as long as the Democratics ruled our nation. Hopefully with better results

[No Truce With Kings]

"A new party, eventually called the "Democrats" did rise up to replace it on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but the point is that PARTIES DO DIE, they DO GO AWAY when their message is no longer relevant."

Actually, the Democrats were already there -- only during the War of 1812 era they were called the Republican-Democrats. The replacement for the Federalists was a conservative party called the Whigs. They, in turn, fractured over the issue of slavery, and were replaced by the Republicans, with the pro-slavery Whigs becoming Democrats. The Republican party was a combination of conservatism and populism -- a characteristic that it retains to this date. (Populism? Yep -- the WalMart Republicans are the populist, "common-man" branch of the party.)

I don't know if the Democrats will go away. What I see is the leftist-socialist wing bolting to the Greens, with the left-of-center moderate part remaining as a 3rd party. between the two "extremes." (The Greens may be extreme, but the Republicans ain't.) The question then becomes will the Greens eventually wither away -- like the various labor parties formed in the late 1800s faded in the mid 1900s -- or will the moderate rump wither.

I hope it is the Greens, because if they remain there will be two parties -- a small, radical Green party, and a large, unbeatable Republican party. When that happens then the political jackels swarm in and corrupt the party -- rather like the Clinton-McCauliffe-Dailey-Cumo factions have corrupted the Democrats. (Is it a coincindence that Hillery came from Chicago? Don't think so. She learned her lessons well.)

[GWB00]

They brighten at the mention of an undeclared outsider like retired Gen. Wesley Clark. But they cannot conceive of a mechanism to bring in an outsider.

As a previous poster wrote, "Its National Security Stupid" If the Democrats really believe that the economy or healthcare are going to be their "burning" issues, why are they so anxious for a Military General to come in and "save the day"!

I thinks that this illustrates how dishonest they are being to themselves.

[Jhoffa_]

If they want to "re-start" with the American people, they are going to have to ditch their radical wing.

No one is going to elect an anti-war, pro-gay, anti-christian, abortionist, tree hugger POTUS anytime soon.

It's just not going to happen.

Their "hero" Bill Clinton did more damage to that party in 8 years than the GOP was able to inflict in decades.

[Jhoffa_]

These Democrats feel that the famously liberal media have gone missing...

This is true also, except they aren't "missing"

They had such a media monopoly for so long that they abused it and took it for granted. They began to insult their listeners, readers and viewers to the point of outright name calling, and they did it for decades.

THEN, alternatives came about, via the WWW, Satelite and Cable. When the American public was given viable options, they (naturally) opted for views that more closely mirror their own.

Thus, the Liberal media was de-fanged by the free market..

The same liberals in the media are still out there, and they are still making noise... But no one is listening to them now.

[aristeides]

And the Whig Party also died when the slavery issue forced a separation of the Northern and Southern wings of the party. Eventually, the Northern wing of the Whig Party became the Republican Party.

I suspect that, as after the War of 1812, we will have a period when the Republican Party is dominant almost exclusively, followed in relatively short order by a split in the Republican Party (libertarians and neoconservatives?), which leads to a new two-party system.

[schaketo]

These Democrats feel that the famously liberal media have gone missing; that the party cannot find a strong, declarative voice among its congressional leaders; and that the Democratic National Committee, under Terry MacAuliffe, is ineffectual - that it whines but does not fight.

=== Cut === Paste === Email to Friends and Family ===

In the upcoming democratic primary (2004) ...

BIG AL NEEDS OUR HELP! - Register as a democrat and vote for Crazy Al!

Rev. Al Sharpton is officially running for president in 2004.

During the May 3, 2003 demoncrap debate in Columbia, S.C., our man Al stated “The way to move a donkey is to slap the donkey,” and “I’m going to slap the donkey until the donkey kicks”.

Let’s help Crazy Al slap the donkey until it kicks.

Assume GW has the Republican nomination sewn up. Its time for all good republicans, libertarians, and independents to stand up and be counted. Lets take a page from Sen. McCain’s play book. Prior to the 2004 democratic presidential primary in your state, re-register as a democrat and vote for Al Sharpton!

Wouldn’t it be great if Crazy Al won! At the very least, lets ensure he gets prime time speaking rights at the 2004 nationally televised democratic convention. You gotta love it. Line up, sign up, and send this to all your like-minded friends.

Check here for the rules governing primary voting in your state:
http://www.fec.gov/votregis/primaryvoting.htm

In case you’d like to send Big Al a donation:
http://www.sharptonexplore2004.com/

Anyone need a bumper sticker or button?
http://democraticbuttons.freeservers.com/

How about an Al Sharpton yard sign?
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/victorystore00/pryasi.html

Oh yea, and don’t forget to call the local demoncrap party headquarters and ask them the following before the primary election:

1. Can I get a ride to the polls – help them spend their money during the primaries so they’ll have less during the national election. Have them take you the scenic route and stop off and do some shopping on the way home.
2. Are you giving anything away free for voting democrat? Cigarettes, box of cigars, box lunch, etc. Ask for two of each.
3. Send 25 cents in the mail to the DNC and watch how much they spend on mailing you to give to the party. Always send their solicitation back to them with all associated literature in the prepaid envelope included in the mailing. They have to pay that postage upon return. Great way to help them spend money and keep you up to date on their propaganda.
4. Can you think of any other questions we should ask them?

=== Cut === Paste === Email to Friends and Family ===