Just what is it with the Democrats ... a deathwish?

All true, of course, but I'm struck by the notion that I can't think of a single American who can name more than one Republican candidate. There are some problems on this side of the aisle, too.

It is my opinion that the Dems are setting themselves up for another national embarrassment--like the lopsided Dukakis defeat--unless Bush's percieved weaknesses are hammered, and cause an anti-Bush vote, rather than a pro-Dem vote.

The Dem activists, the ones who we are hearing from on this board, and in the media, occupy the left hinterlands of the party. Certainly nothing wrong with that. But, as I've seen the media warn, and as some of us have said on the A2K forum-- these further-left Dems are pushing forward a candidate, who is at least percieved to be too left and unpalatable to the centrists who put men in the White House. One, who will wow them in the primaries, and win maybe one state in the general. McGovern and Dukakis speak clearly on the subject.

I've been thumbing through polls, and despite the unprovability of WMDs and continuing loss of life in Iraq, 63% of the public still (as of this month) support the war, and think it was the right thing to do. Insulting Bush for the war insults the majority of Americans. I can't see this tack of Dean's winning votes.

Additionally, this country is loathe to trust Dems--especially one, who has made major blunders in military information, such as Dean--when there are troops in the field.

I still believe until the Dems put together a cohesive identity to the voting public, they are just a minor option to the ruling party. The 2002 mid terms meant something big. The South voting out Max Cleland and putting Republicans in key governorships, one being the first since Reconstruction-- signalled a serious departure from politics as usual. Since 2002, the Dems have been an extreme underdog, in my view, and should have been very busy in self-examination, re-evaluation and change.

Some may say they have, and they decided to move left and be independant of their tendancy to 'act like Republicans', but I haven't seen anything to show a rebirth. And, the thing is--if they have decided to move left to assume a new identity, it will be a while before the masses feel safe following them. They need someone with tested military prowess, or at least demonstable knowledge of foreign affairs, and the perception that they will make the tough call, if warranted.

Closing--the centrists poll on the side of the 'war as necessity', and in Bush's war decisions, though they are concerned about the economy. They also poll as their number one priority being national security. This goes neatly into Bush's column.

Barring some unforeseen event, Bush should win handily. To me, the man has made excellent decisions, but his personality and mannerisms make him seem like a weaker candidate than he is.

Perhaps that is because of the 17 others running for the Republican nomination only one of them has ever had any public office and only one (other) has ever managed to even make it onto a primary ballot in their previous attempts and even that was only one ballot in one state. 3 of the 17 have already dropped out of the race altogether. These are folks who need the industrial strength tin-foil hats.

On the Democratic Party side there are actually 66 declared candidiates that have completed the necessary FEC paperwork to seek the party nomination. No one is ever mentioning anything but the top 9 or 10.

I can't name another Republican nominee, but I can't think of any natural circumstance, where I'd consider going against the incumbent. A sitting President would have to commit some heinous act to lose the nomination of their party, or for members of his party to even consider someone else, IMO. I can well understand no one knowing about the other GOP hopefuls.

You know, now that Rog brings it up, does the media ever shine a light on the contenders in a sitting President's party? The only time I remember this happening was Kennedy/Carter.

I'm of the opinion that Bernard Goldberg hit this particular nail on its flat head in his book "Bias", wherein he wrote that the liberal bias in the media was not a matter of intent, but stemmed from the complete immersion in liberal circles by these people. They are out of touch with most of America because they are never exposed to most of America; they travel in liberal circles where their far-left opinions appear to be mainstream and middle-of-the-road. They don't complain of the dark, because they've never been exposed to the light.

Scrat, I think Bernie was on to something there. His observation re the insularity of The Liberal Media seems apt. I notice a sort of condescending, patronizing manner from talking heads conducting small-town man-in-the-street or redneck-in-the-coffeeshop interviews, for example ... a bit of scorn, tempered with evident pity ("its not their fault their poor and ignorant"). I attribute this perceived sense of elitism to the rigors of obtaining the education typically required for a carreer in The Media. The poor sods are cloistered for years in the artificial confines of the Arts and Humanities departments of Academe, daily subjected to the rants and harangues of the now aging tenured twits who've remained shut behind the ivy-shrouded walls since they discovered, in the 'Sixties, that the world is a mean, nasty place full of pragmatic conservatives and feckless moderates, with whom there is no way to meaningfully interact on an intellectual basis ... hell, some of those folks out there in Middle America even sweat when not wearing gym outfits ... and do it every day, with some sort of insane pride ... how rude.

Your most recent post here, Timber, was one on-target, blistering mouthful.

Thanks, kids ... imagine how that (or this thread, for that matter) would be received on the public boards here!

If I wasn't such a good girl, I'd take it over there.... :wink:

Somehow, I don't think it'd be too popular.

Timber - Your question regarding how your comments would be welcomed (or rather not) on the open boards led me to a minor epiphany:

One of the core attributes of those whom I term ultraliberals is their absolute inability or refusal (take your pick) to embrace factual evidence, data, logic or sensible opinion that does not fit their chosen world view.

From Neal Boortz

A LITTLE TRIP TO FANTASYLAND

Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Wesley Clark and the rest of the party of appeasement have been doing everything they can to encourage Baathist dreams of a return to power in Iraq. Islamic terrorist organizations around the world could be excused for for believing that they would have a much easier time pursuing their terrorist goals if one of these appeasers were to win the presidency. Think about it. Every one of these candidates either voted against or said they would vote against continued funding for President Bush's efforts to restructure Iraq with a democratically elected government that would recognize the rights of individual Iraqi citizens. Every one of these of these candidates opposed continued funding of our military efforts to remove Saddam and his Baath Party goons from power. How could Islamic terrorists not be encouraged by this? Just hold on for a year and things might well be a lot easier for them!

Do these Democrats recognize that they are in fact giving aid and comfort to the enemy with their campaign tactics? Of course they do. They know full well that Islamic terrorist leaders are licking their beards at the prospect of another Democrat in the White House. Democrats see this as a price America should pay to have Democrats regain their rightful place in the seat of power. The Islamic terrorist leaders understand the Democratic culture, even if many American voters don't They experienced it for eight years with Bill Clinton as president. During those eight years it was a lot of words and a few cruise missiles, but little else from America. Bill Clinton wouldn't even take bin Laden when he was offered up on a silver platter! Why would the terrorists think it would be any different under Dean, Kerry, Edwards or Clark?

OK ... I said this was going to be a little trip to fantasyland. Do you want to know what would break the back of Islamic terrorism right now? This little event could have the impact of the capture of Saddam or Osama! It would take the heart out of the opposition in Iraq. It's not a new weapon, it's just a simple written joint statement.

This is a "what if" fantasy, but what if every one of the Democrat candidates for president were to issue a press release, a joint statement to the media.

Joint Statement of Democratic Candidates for President

The undersigned candidates for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States wish to make the following joint statement.

In 2004 Americans will go to the polls to elect a president. This ongoing process has taken place every four years since the formation of our Republic over 200 years ago. These elections have taken place in times of peace, and in times of war. In either case the transition of power has been orderly according to our laws. In November of 2004 the people of America will either give George Bush, our current president, four more years to serve, or they will vote to put a member of the Democratic Party in his place.

During the coming months you will hear a vibrant and sometimes harsh debate between among the candidates, both Republican and Democratic. We have strongly felt policy differences with President Bush and will present those differences to the American voters to assist them in their decision making.

There is, however, one area where no disagreement exists between the parties or the candidates. With this statement we wish to put Islamic terrorists on notice that we are resolutely dedicated to the war on terror and to the liberation of Iraq. No matter who serves in the White House, the safety of the American people and of our friends around the world will be of paramount importance. You should take no comfort if the voters of America see fit to transfer the presidency to any of the undersigned Democrats, for we are hereby pledging to pursue the war on terror and the liberation of Iraq with every bit of the fervor that has been shown by President Bush. There will be no appeasement and there will be no withdrawal. The military effort will continue, and will continue with full funding, as will the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. We, as Democrats, stand by our Republican countrymen in our absolute determination to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism. America, with its Judeo-Christian ethic, has shown that it can live in peace and harmony with the religions of the world. The choice is yours to make. You can either choose to live in peace and harmony with us, or you can choose to test our determination to rid the world of terrorism.

Use wisely your power of choice.


This will never happen, of course, because many at the core of Democratic Party leadership do not want American to be this strong. They view America as a mere member "state" of the United Nations, our de facto world government. If such a statement were issued it would have a profound demoralizing affect on the leadership of Islamic terrorism around the world. They would know that their way will not be easier after next year's election, no matter who wins. They would know that Americans -- all Americans -- are dedicated to their destruction. The divisiveness of the current campaign strengthens the terrorists. The constant partisan attacks on the president, the votes to discontinue funding and the condemnation of our efforts in Iraq serve to comfort terrorists and to give them hope for greater opportunities to make their mark in the future.

This is the inevitable result of politicians putting their political fortunes above the security of the American people.

Link

ANDY SLAMS 'LOST' DEMS OVER 9/11

Excerpt


October 22, 2003 -- ALBANY - In a scathing rebuke to his own party, Andrew Cuomo is charging that Democrats are "lost in time," often appear "bloodless, soulless and clueless," and have "fumbled" their role in the post-9/11 world.
What's more, Cuomo is praising President Bush "for recognizing the challenge of 9/11 and rising to it."

Cuomo's startling observations - which often read like a Republican attack on the Democratic Party - appear in "Crossroads: The Future of American Politics," a just-published Random House book for which the former federal housing secretary and unsuccessful Democratic gubernatorial hopeful served as editor.

"Democrats lost elections in 2000 and 2002 because we were lost in time," wrote Cuomo, son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo, in a 24-page essay.

Full story

Brand X - I can't wait to see the liberal meltdown over this. Soon we'll be reading how Cuomo was never a "real" Democrat...

Well, he hasn't made a lot of friends, so he has nothing to lose by telling the truth about the party.

He has nothing to lose by giving his honest opinion of the party. I don't think we're dealing with issues of truth or fiction here, but it is illuminating to see someone within the Democrat fold shouting that the emperor has no plan and no compass. Whether that is true is something that probably can not be established in a factual way, but it is telling and frankly exciting to hear that opinion from this source.

The Dems chance of inserting one of their own into the white house is inversely proportional to public perception as to what seems to be going wrong with America and its policies, at home and abroad, and the economy.

The numbers for the economy seem to be holding their own and even un-employment figures are at least holding steady. This does not bode well for the Dems. The Democratic politicians also must contend with a situation that they, along with politicians of all stripes, have created themselves.

Over the last 20 years or so the political leaders of the country have run campaigns according to polls thereby making their elections merely the results of popular plebiscites--find out which way the wind is blowing then merely drift with it. This was the best of it; In addition, we have for years had to deal with negative campaigning tactics. These only obfuscate and rob the voters of time that might have been better used by the candidates to actually put forth solutions to the problems that needed addressing.

This, of course, is not the politician's fault it is those that elect them. I don't know how to correct or remedy this, but I suspect individual responsibility is the only solution. Only when a larger number of voters demand more "meat" in political debates will this be resolved. Problem is the voters must devote the time and effort to defining this "meat". We alone, as citizens, have the responsibility of researching and demanding answers to the problems concerning our nation. I have been attacked before on other threads for demanding more personal responsibility when drinking hot coffee but this is much more important. Not only is the future of democracy in question, so is that of freedom itself.

OK, I'll dismount my high horse now. Suffice it to say the politician that appears to demonstrate leadership is the one who will get elected. At this point who would that be? A democrat that voted for War and reconstruction costs? A democrat that voted for War and not reconstruction costs? One who noisily said that from the beginning the present administration has been consistently wrong? Who looks like a leader? G.W. Bush comes to mind. The only democratic foray into leadership seemed to be Sen. Gephardt's proposal involving National Health Care, which at this point seems stillborn relative to other issues. I personally feel the Dems condemnation of Bush with the full benefit of hindsight is "NOT GO'IN DO IT". Iraq concerns me at this point. It seems this could be a potential legacy for President Bush if handled correctly. Timber has posted his optimistic opinions on this and I sincerely hope he is right for, as we all here know, success in Iraq is important for reasons other than window-dressing for the present administration.

As mentioned before, the big thing is the economy. At this point Bush's only worry is the erosion of the public's perception of him as a straight shooter, via the African uranium yellow cake thing. Potentially the "outing" of Ambassador Wilson's wife as a CIA "operative" could also be a problem. After all, don't you think G.W could find out who leaked that info if he really wanted to? The man responsible for pushing Osama and Saddam into a Hidey-Hole now politely asking those who did a bad thing to come forward seems, well, a bit lame. We shall see.

JM

You've stated a lot to agree with, and I even agree somewhat with this statement, but at the same time I believe that the men who run for office either choose to stand for something or to follow the polls. That is their choice. That we elect men such as these, is ours. But I sometimes wonder where all the leaders are.

Scrat,

It does seem in these times America's production of great leaders is rather parsimonious. But, I often wonder: is this close-up concentrated view we all possess of our times a valid tool for viewing greatness? As we look back through the somewhat cloudy lens of history the gritty details of events are filtered and polished out by both historians and the human tendency to forget the bad and remember mostly the good.

It has been said that those wonderful leaders of the past had their greatness thrust upon them. This implies that the leadership was there beneath the surface and could only be unearthed by momentous events. It is the combination of noble human character and threatening events that produces great leaders. I feel the DNA is out there waiting for the selective pressure of events to allow the phenotype of nobility to shine.

Surely 9/11 qualifies as the much awaited selective pressure, but I personally see little evidence of the desired phenotype at this point. Admittedly this opinion is a little unfair to the present administration simply because, unlike those momentous events in history that we might compare G.W. Bushes efforts with, the fat lady is still singing about them. After all, if Bush's administration is re-elected and we negate Al Qaeda and make Iraq whole again somewhat in our image of a responsible member of the international community, who will remember presidential walks on carrier decks, yellow cake, or Ambassador Wilson's wife 10 or more years from now?

What is sad, I fear, is that if the war on terror and Iraq fail in the eyes of history the Bush administration will be blamed, validly or not. In the first case, where this administration carries on, the criticism will be valid. Given election of a Democratic administration in '04 they may not resist the temptation to let these events go to hell so that the previous admin looks bad and by default proves the Dems correct by default. But this ignobility works towards an invalid conclusion of the Bush admin efforts simply because they would not have been given the chance to finish the job.

JM