Posted on 01/20/2005 5:25:19 AM PST by Brilliant
WASHINGTON -- As Republicans are celebrating President Bush's second inauguration, Democrats are plotting the best way to prevent another Republican victory party in four years.
In doing so, they face a fundamental choice: Is the party best served by waging what one party strategist terms "total war" against the president and his party? Or, fearing such an approach would turn off more voters than it would energize, should Democrats pick their fights more selectively?
The appeal of the war option is obvious. It energizes activists and appeals to their anger at losing two close presidential races in a row. On Friday, one upstart group, making the point that it wants the party to stand up to President Bush, plans to deliver a 70-foot puppet of a backbone to the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Another is organizing an inaugural protest with participants literally turning their backs on the parade and, symbolically, the president...
Stanley B. Greenberg, a well-respected polling expert, is drafting a book analyzing the 2004 elections that includes a chapter titled "Toward Total War." In it, he concludes: "For the Democrats, the path to the future begins with a reckoning: there is no alternative to total war, indeed to a total campaign as well."...
The Democrats' alternative to war would be to scour the legislative agenda and pick fights on issues they believe will help them sharpen their image and message with voters.
The Social Security overhaul already is emerging as one of those fights, and Democrats are certain to clash with the White House if there is an opening on the Supreme Court because such debates revolve around the party's commitment to the environment, women and minorities...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Choose an enemy that won't cut off your head when you lose. - Sun Libs' Rules of War
Yeh, and Peyton Manning and the Colts are weighing their strategy for another visit to snowy New England. LOL.
They found Janet Reno?
Did any one of them think of a third Strategy? Try doing whats best for this country? Try voting for bills that will help the country and not the party? Try to prove themselves the party of the people by doing whats right not what will hurt president Bush. I guarantee it would not go un-noticed and it would work.
I'd like to thank the Democrats that came up with the game plan of putting out KKK Byrd to delay Condi's confirmation.
Brilliant! That should win the democrats a few votes. LOL
They can't help themselves. Their happiness comes from hating.
"Try doing whats best for this country?"
Like coming back from Nam and saying we were killing babies, raping and pillaging like the armies of Genghis Kahn? That kind of best?
move to canada
For now, congressional leaders are measuring their steps. "We have a responsibility to the public to find our common ground for the public good," says House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. "But where we don't, we will stand our ground."
Sooo, she's saying that we'll try to be bipartisan, but we're not compromising at all. And they wonder why they keep losing elections!
This guy is a genius, I certainly hope the Democrats listen to him. I can't wait to their contract for America:
1. Gay Marriage for everyone!
2. Ban all public forms of prayer!
3. Tax the rich out of existence (except for rich Hollywood types)!
4. Disband our military and give the money to the UN!
5. Sign global warming treaty and set up breathing schedules so half the population can breath on odds days and the other half on even days!
6. Ban all forms of home schooling and require 12 hours of public education from ages 3-20 so we can even sink more dollars into that black hole.
7. First child mandatory abortion to save the earth from overpopulation! 8. Free health care for everyone with the government rationing out what little that is left.
9. Declare March 1 a national holiday, Terrorist Forgiveness Day!
I'm not sure that's what he meant by "total war." I suspect he meant ballot stuffing, tire slashing of GOP buses, union thugs ransacking GOP headquarters and beating up volunteers, controling the media, banning political contributions, shutting down religious organizations, and stuff like that.
Joe Lieberman was very astute when he said that if the Democrats don't come back towards the center, they will be out in "the political wilderness" for a long time.
I really think someone should examine what a phenom Clinton truly was, and what a ruthlessly effective campaigning machine he proved to be. Look at where the dems stood in 1988 with the Dukakis loss... and then look at them in 2000 with AlGore. It looks like the continuation of a loser trend... except for the Clinton interregnum. You could say that Clinton was an outlier in a long-term Democratic trend that goes back to the 60's.
They are fighting each other. Some are still upset over the alleged Ohio voting irregularities. They don't get that it's over. They lost. Concentrate on 2008. They want action now, which is unattainable. If the democrats lose the 2008 election, I predict the end of the party.
It depends what happens in Congress. We could get a clue on that in 2006.
"They want us to fight it on Mainstreet USA."
I think that's misworded. It should read "They want us to fight it against Mainstreet USA."
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.