Nice Wad; Got a Brain to Go With That?
By Thomas Posted in Democrats — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you George Soros.
I give you MoveOn.org.
I give you America Coming Together.
I give you the Media Fund.
I give you Howard Dean's resurrection of Gene McCarthy's campaign, with a thousand well-funded baby soldiers, and the transformation of the modern Democrat campaign.
I give you Democrat voters so terribly fired up -- and they mean it!! -- that they'll give 'til it hurts, and vote, and stamp, and stomp, and rally, to toss Bushitler out!!
I give you abject failure:
Those tactical successes were part of the overall advantage the Bush campaign maintained over Kerry in terms of planning, decision making and strategy. The Kerry campaign, in addition to being outspent at key times, was outorganized and outthought, as Democratic professionals grudgingly admit.
You can put nice lingerie, fine makeup, Amarige, and BoTox on a pig, but he's still gonna be John Kerry at the end of the day.
And if that pig lacks the good sense God gave decapitated mosquitoes -- as the Democrats this year, as a whole, seemed to -- then you can put as much Dom down your throat as you like, but at the end of the night, you're still going home with a dumb sow.
In other words: If the Donkeys intend to be competitive in 2008 (count 2006 out right now), I'd suggest moving out of the barnyard when picking a candidate. All the money in the world won't save you if voters can smell the slop from the cheap seats.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | The Coming Peach State Bloodbath — Comments (1) »
Nice Wad; Got a Brain to Go With That? 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is no time for Republicans to be smug. The Democrats made some mistakes, but mainly they were put into an impossible position by GWB: It is all but unheard of to unseat a wartime President.
I think there was more to the President's victory than Iraq, but not much. Republicans would be very wise not to read too much into it.
An increasingly unpopular war, low consumer confidence, and a President who, at times, handles English the way Michael Jackson handles a toddler. So in all - it's probably a wash.
I'm not sure I buy the out-organized for 20 years line - our party more than yours fell into the reliance on media consultants and air wars through the late 80s and the 90s - a trend only reversed in or around 2000.
Jeff, over on this thread you think Iraq sealed the victory for W. On another thread you stated that w/out Roe v. Wade, Republicans would have lost. Which is it? Some consistency in your critiques would be nice.
W didn't put the democrats in any position. They did it all by themselves.
Smug? I don't think so. More like thankful for another four years of leadership. Not perfect, but MUCH better than what the democrats had to offer.
Krempasky, I tend to agree. How did we get into this situation where both parties give us such bad candidates?
Bush and Kerry. What a choice.
We really ought to switch to instant-runoff voting or something similar. I want to be able to vote libertarian and still vote republican too as a backup. Bush as a borrow-and-spend giant-government republican may be marginally better than Kerry, but we surely deserved a third choice.
seems way better than our current two party system. Because of our current election process, both parties end up so beholden to special interests it makes me sick thinking about it. It really weakens the idea of true democracy.
I would hazard to guess more people voted "against" someone than "for" someone in this last election (on both sides). The whole election dialogue turned into a negative mudslingfest using pushbutton wedge issues, name-calling and fear tactics. We're getting farther and farther away from true democracy. And the U.S. is supposed to be the shining example.
How can we institute Instant Run-off Voting? I guess it would have to happen on a state by state referendum level or something like that. Anybody know?
...just different contexts.
The war-time-President effect provided Bush with a boost this time around, but I don't think we (Republicans) should think that is anything more than it is: The country is always reluctant to change leaders during a war.
The long term effect is caused by Roe. I really believe that (for reasons that I can not begin to understand) the Democratic coalition has picked abortion (or more accurately, sexual liberation) as the "last hill" it will defend. Look at Clinton's presidency. He was willing to throw just about every traditional Democratic group under the bus except for the pro-choice bunch.
This is fundamentally outside of the mainstream of American values. I remain amazed that the Democrats are willing to throw away everything just to keep late term abortions legal. That position is radicalizing their party. As long as they are viewed as (first and formost) the party of absolute abortion rights, they are going to fade.
But Republicans need to understand what this does not mean. It does not mean that the current official Republican view is supported by a majority.
George Will's recent column is right on the money, from what I can tell. It is time to enter into a "post-Roe" politics. The party that manages that transition will own the country for 50 years. Currently, I think the Republicans are better positioned than the Democrats. But if the Democrats use their '04 defeat as a catalyst to moderate their pro-choice views, Republicans are in trouble.
FDR lost the New Deal coalition in Congress.
Truman got tagged in the primaries.
Johnson knew what was coming.
Even Lincoln only barely pulled it off against total incompetents.
You can put nice lingerie, fine makeup, Amarige, and BoTox on a pig, but he's still gonna be John Kerry at the end of the day.
Imagine what Democrats could have done with a halfway decent candidate. You have consistently outorganized us for twenty years, and yet we got 48% of the vote in three straight Presidential elections, winning the popular vote in three of the last four.
If you're going to make fun of the Democratic Party for being incompetent, well, then you're with most Democrats. But I have to say that if a slim victory is the best you can do against this bunch of jokers, you're in trouble, long-term.