Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

(Meanwhile, at some point can we stop talking about red states like they're monoliths? I live in a red state, by some 136,000 votes -- that's not much of a margin. That means there were a whole lot of people who were ready to make this a blue state. Winner takes all means that all of the electors go to one candidate or another, but it doesn't mean that everyone's mind suddenly goes to one candidate or another, too. People who voted blue still think blue after the elections, even if their state went red. And there are a lot of them -- in every single state.) (I loved nimh's purple map...)

Perhaps I misread the following (also from sozobe)

Jesus himself prolly would've been more likely to be a commie pinko Democrat than a Republican. There's nothing wrong with Democrats embracing that concept while staying true to their core values.

The Economist argues that the Democrats lost not because Bush campaigned on fear, but because he painted an optimistic scenario for the future and campaigned on it. The Democrats, on the other hand, campaigned on not being Bush and on preserving the status quo. The Economist doesn't think it has to be that way though.


Read on

It was a misreading of what I meant, I'll leave it to others to say whether I expressed it clearly or not. (It's clear to me, but it would be, I know my own mind pretty well... ;-))

I think the operative word is while. Not "despite", or "being careful to", or "even though they need to". Whole point is that "while" is not a big deal -- the core values are already very much in keeping with the concept of embracing Christianity.

Interesting article, Thomas.

"Thinking blue" is precisely why many believe the Democrats lost. I think it isn't that most Democrats are actually opposed to most of the values held by most of those who turned the red states red, but it is that the Democrats support or refused to disassociate themselves from people who are.



Remainder of article:

Posted on Sun, Nov. 21, 2004

DEMOCRATS
Not attuned with American values

BY DENNIS PRAGER

www.dennisprager.com

According to The New York Times, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, reflecting on her party's recent losses in the presidential, Senate and House elections, asked: ``How did a party that is filled with people with values -- and I am a person with values -- get tagged as the party without values?''

As one who was raised a Democrat and became a Republican 10 years ago, I would like to answer Napolitano's question as honestly as she posed it.

Napolitano, your party does indeed have many people with values in it. But the Democratic Party is no more representative of the average Democrat's values than the National Council of Churches is of the average Protestant's values. Both are far to the left of their membership.

Here is the Democratic Party as most Americans, including this John F. Kennedy liberal -- a New York City-born and -raised, Jewish, Ivy League-educated intellectual who lives in Los Angeles -- see it.

To most Americans, Michael Moore is a Marxist who has utter contempt for most of his fellow Americans, who goes abroad and tells huge audiences how stupid and venal his country is, and in his dishonest propaganda film, portrays the American military as callous buffoons. Yet, this radical was given the most honored seat at the Democratic Party convention in Boston, next to former President Jimmy Carter.

To most Americans, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-baiting demagogues. Yet they are heroes to the Democratic Party. Most Americans do not see their country as the bigoted and racist nation regularly depicted by both black and white Democratic leaders.

To most Americans, a man who wears women's clothing to work is a pathetic person in need of psychotherapy. To the Democratic Party, he is a man whose cross-dressing is merely another expression of multiculturalism. The California legislature, controlled by Democrats, passed a law prohibiting employers from firing a man who shows up to work wearing women's clothing.

To most Americans, Eminem is a vulgar nihilist who poisons young Americans' minds. To John Kerry, he was a man whose anti-Bush hate video was worthy of endorsement.

To most Americans, obscenity-filled evenings should be restricted to R-rated films or a Las Vegas comedy act, not a major party's fund raiser attended by its candidates for U.S. president. To Democrats, those who object to such evenings are regarded as judgmental, hypocritical and narrow minded.

To most Americans, Hollywood stars are regarded as terrific to watch in films but also as narcissistic ingrates when, between private jet trips to Cuba and Cannes, they express their contempt for traditional America. That the Democrats have a veritable monopoly on support from folks such as Sean Penn and Robert ''Castro-is-a-great-leader'' Redford may give Democrats a heady feeling, but for tens of millions of Americans, it merely reinforces their belief that the Democratic Party shares Hollywood's values.

To most Americans, the American military is not only heroic; it is regarded as more important to safeguarding freedom than any other human institution, including the ACLU, the United Nations or the university, to cite three major Democratic Party affiliates. To virtually the entire Left, which includes the Democratic Party, the military is, at best, a necessary evil. Otherwise, the overriding doctrine is ''Make love, not war.'' That is why Harvard still refuses to allow ROTC training -- and it is unlikely that either of the Massachusetts senators even finds that wrong, let alone as reprehensible as most Americans do.

To most Americans, gays are fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual and who should be accorded the same respect that any fellow American is accorded. But most Americans also believe that America should retain the millennia-old definition of marriage as man-woman. They regard liberal judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage with contempt. And these judges are identified with the Democrats.

Whatever their views on abortion and abortion rights, the vast majority of Americans view the abortion of a viable fetus/baby (partial-birth abortion) as immoral. Kerry and his fellow Democrats repeatedly voted against a ban on this practice.

Napolitano, I hope that this short list answers your question about how it is that your party has gotten tagged as ''the party without values.'' Indeed, the real question is: How has this party retained so many people who have traditional American values?

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host, columnist and author of four books, including Think a Second Time.

©2004 Creators Syndicate

From the Economist article posted by Thomas:



That was pretty much it. The backwards thinking mess of radicals running the show is what is and what will continue to sink the Democratic Party.

What does the ole Economist know any how! Poohy.

Speaking of building bridges to the past, I've read that Karl Rove's role model is Mark Hanna, the Ohio boss who got William McKinley into the White House....

You know what though? I really like young teens one on one--it's in a group that they can be intolerable. And I like most Democrats one on one--it's in a group that they tend to be obnoxious. (Just teasing).

The fact is, if you took each issue, one at a time, without attaching a person or label or ideology to it as it is examined, probably the majority of us, Democrat, Republican et al, would likely be more close than apart on it.

What would be left would be the very legitimate debate over whether government or the private sector and/or federal vs more local government is the best way to deal with the issues that are important to us.

hmmm, well since Bush has been all about growth of the federal government, and increased government spending so far, that would mean the Democrats would now have to stand for a decrease in government growth and spending.

interesting twist on things.

In the last election, the Dems did advocate reduced government spending...for the things the Congress has voted to spend our tax dollars on. But they also proposed to replace that spending with increased spending to fund their desire for a Nanny government.

And they lost resoundingly again.

Of course reaching a consensus means that Democrats would have to be able to separate the discussion from the personas/ideology/party etc. I wonder if Democrats can do that?

Doesn't appear so. They seem to refuse to listen to the mainstream and insist on changing the mainstream way of thinking to theirs...with disasterous results to the acceptance of the party's message and messengers by the electorate.

Does anyone have any intention of taking Foxy and pragmaticone's advice on fixing the Democratic Party?



Morons.

Hi PDiddie............

It's disgusting around here, I know. But don't go away. I love you.

You reap what you sow. In this case serial rejection of the Dem message and messenger by the electorate in this decade.

This fellow has a much more interesting insight (than Larry is capable of expressing, anyway):



Yeah, maybe so, but I would rather think that if anything we're crazy/weird, while they're crazy/dangerous.

And this article from the Washington Post describes the moshing going on in the GOP pit going back to last spring. Look what Denny Hastert's lickspittle said:



Yeah. Hard work. Think I've heard that before.

Take these guys, like Hastert and DeLay and Bush and Rumsfeld. What do they hate more than anything? Government. They can hardly abide government.

Or Norquist and Ralph Reed, take them too. Boy, they really despise government like the devil. Once just poor boozing college kids, they're now extremely wealthy gents. And how did they make their money? By golly, through working for politicians.

well yeah but hey work hard for the money.

You know, sometimes I go two or three days at a time without even thinking of John Leahy, Nancy Pelosi, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton and the other icons of the Democrat circus. I don't care where they came from, and don't worry about how they got their money.

Could they be the core of a secret conspiracy? Come to think of it isn't Al Sharpton - a religious preacher !!! Jesse Jackson too !!! And there was John Kerry giving political speeches ... in Churches !!!! That's it ! There must be a hidden plan here, a cabal of pulpit-banging neo-libs bent on an aggressive policy of post-emption in which we boldly kiss ass and bribe our enemies who then stick it to us again. It's all so obviously middle of the road Northern Baptist. These guys positively love government too. But they don't taker money from it - better pickings out there in the hustings peddling pardons, doing creative fund raisers and pocketing the leftover millions from political campaigns.

I should pay closer attention to all this.