Redstate

It's clear from your last sentence that you think this behavior is as stupid as I think it is. Where do you think it's coming from?

Kennedy, Schumer, and Reid have been around the block a few times. These aren't hotheaded kids. Pelosi comes from the Bay Area, which is nuts, so I sort of understand why she might say some of these things. But Reid? I didn't think Nevada was that blue.

Are we watching frustrated, impotent losers doing the Mullah Omar dance? "Oceans of blood! Seas of fire! We will roast your stomachs!" Is that it?

Are they perhaps living in some echo chamber where everybody talks like this, and they think it's normal?

Yeah, this looks like it's coming from MoveOn, etc., but since when do United States Senators talk like the posters on alt.politics.foodfight?

Is it conceivable that they are being financially supported by someone (read: Soros) who thinks this is how to win friends and influence people?

For now I'm leaning to the Mullah Omar theory, but the truth is, I'm puzzled. It seems so obviously misguided. And these people seem like they ought to have more brains than this.

Which is why you're right if you surmise they are suffering from the Mullah Omar effect.  Really.  I'm serious.  Of the explanations you offered, that one is actually the best.

it seems as if the DNC is blaming its losses on almost everything other than the fact that they no longer appeal to the people who used to be heavy supporters.

I don't think the death nell is ready toll, but I don't think the rettoric that is coming from the leadership at the moment is going to go far to bring the middle america voter back into the fold.  

I was listening to Newt on a new program last night (O'reilly maybe) and he made a good comment.  He said that in 1994 during the contract with america campaign, the GOP didn't just say what they were against, they also said what they are for.  Right now the DNC doesn't seem to have a focused message, about the only focused message the voter gets is what they DNC is against (and some of those things ARE middle america, the attacks on the religious I think are huge-marginalizing a huge segment of the population is going to be a turn off).

Newt said the DNC has to start saying what they are for, not what they are against, and I think if the DNC can get their act together and develop their own "what we are for" and make a good case, they may stop the bleeding, but the party is going to have to marginalize some of the extremes of their party (the majority of people are not in line with the NARAL policy-most people like and want common sense restrictions on abortion).

Your comments about what Newt Gingrich did in the 1990's to help the GOP earn its majority is spot on.  We didn't just say "we don't like Democrats (or Clinton" we said "here are ten things we'll bring up for a vote if we get a majority."

I'm not sure that abortion is necessarily that big of an issue because a lot of people have already staked out their position on it and I don't see it moving that many votes.  I do however think that - with the exception of end of life issues (e.g. refusal of life prolonging procedures and euthanasia) the public is generally closer to social conservatives than it is to social liberals.  Most of what's considered "social conservatism" these days - e.g. banning partial birth abortion, "shall issue" concealed carry reform, defining civil marriage as one man and one woman, executing serial killers, not falsely accusing your country of running a "gulag," opposition to racial preferences and setasides, etc. is pretty much the social mainstream.  

I give a lot of the credit to the President and people like him for how they've helped to change the debate on social issues.  They pushed for the substance while rhetorically smoothing out the rough edges.  While supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment, we're disavowing the gay bashers.  In fighting islamofascists, we're disavowing those who would "use it as an excuse to pick on people who are different from you." Instead of showing pictures of partial birth abortions, we're talking about the "culture of life."  In other words, social conservatives have learned to fight smarter not just harder on their issues and it's starting to pay off in a lot of areas that may not seem apparent.

Where I think we need more work are on issues where we seem to have let the Democratic alternatives dominate the debate.  We have better ideas on health care but we don't talk about health care reform as much as Democrats so ours are almost an afterthought (if at all) in the public's mind.  We don't have as much appeal on environmental issues because the debate is about whether we keep, expand, or "roll back" the current level of regulations rather than talking about reforming them and getting more environmental bang for the buck.  We also haven't done enough IMO to reach out on "consumer issues" like many Democratic Attorneys General who have made this their hallmark which could be a vulnerability as a lot of members of the "investor class" worry about issues like corporate fraud and consumer protection.  

Democrats will, sooner or later, dump Dean and pick someone sane as their leader.  They will begin picking candidates who are at least perceived as being more socially moderate or at least "center left" just as Bush is "center right."  They'll find someone with a "fiscally conservative" voting record who balanced a budget and who isn't perceived as being radically anti-business with some traction on consumer protection.  He or she will not be part of the Moveon.org crowd but still be able to be critical somewhat on the War but probably offer a "constructive" alternative after eight years of Bush in order to "change the tone" (sound familiar?  It's what happened in 1992 and 2000).

My suggestion for Republicans is to continue with areas where we are stronger, continue to expand the party base as Chairman Melman has been trying to do, and work on articulating a competitive (and then dominant) message on issues like health care reform, consumer protection, and the environment.  

it's about time that the democrats develop some

backbone...

that Dean keeps it up

example.

There are other issues and areas where the dems need to move center.

I also think the lefts attachement to anti war groups makes it difficult for middle america to trust them on security.

I also think if one of the two parties would come up with a coherant plan to deal with illegal immigration, and follow through on it, they will pull lots of votes.  Right now this still seems to be the issue neither party wants to touch.

But if everyone is so glad Dean is doing what he is doing, saying what he is saying, why do we keep saying so? Let us all shut up and let his mouth do the walking, right?

I just have seen about 50 people since Saturday say "Good!" or "Let him keep it up!"

Well, ok, then let him. Right?

I'm just not sure why we keep voicing that same opinion. It's beginning to sound a bit forced and insincere.

...alot of what Republicans are saying about Howard Dean are the same things we said about Newt Gingrich.  It seems like Republicans have nothing to fear from Democrats being amorphous moderates, as it has given the party a great deal of electoral failure.  The Dean approach is shooting for realignment.  I certainly have no idea if it will work, but it is a much greater threat to the GOP than Democrats trying to sway a few moderates in the center.

When Dean shoots his mouth off, Republicans are put on the defensive.  Right now, Republicans are saying they're not just the party of white Christians instead of promoting their own agenda.  Dean puts the Democrats on the offensive for the first time in a very long time, and although Republicans might find him offensive, they are forced to play on the Democrats' field.

Dean is SOOO extremist . . . unlike the Republicans:

1. On FOX, Tony Blankley called Soros "a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust"
   
2. Sean Hannity: God is "no Democrat"; Dennis Miller: Jesus "prefers Bush to Kerry"
   
3. "The Democrats want Saddam back" and other Coulterisms
   
4. Republican reverend ignored recent history in condemning only Democrats for atrocities against African Americans
   
5. Coulter on MSNBC and FOX: called Americans who don't support Bush "traitors"
   
6. Oliver North: "Every terrorist" wants Kerry to win
   
7. CAP: Hannity explained that asking "Is it that you hate the president or that you hate America?" is not equal to questioning patriotism
   
8. Michelle Malkin defended WWII internment, racial profiling today; said Mineta's view "clouded" by his internment
   
9. Coulter blamed Democrats for 9-11, USS Cole attack, embassy bombings
   
10. Oliver North denied that atrocities occurred in Vietnam; moments later, anti-Kerry vet said they did occur
    
11. Coulter: "Kerry will improve the economy in the emergency services and body bag industry"
    
12. Gingrich: George Soros "wants to spend $75 million defeating George W. Bush because Soros wants to legalize heroin"
    
13. How would she know? Coulter the latest to claim terrorists support Kerry
    
14. Coulter on women: "We're not that bright"
    
15. Ann Coulter on tour: "I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days" to talk to liberals
    
16. David Horowitz: Democrats, media are "getting Americans killed in Iraq ... because of their pathological hatred of George [W.] Bush"
    
17. Radio host Cunningham told Hannity election is over "because Elizabeth Edwards has now sung"
    
18. Falwell called NOW "the National Order of Witches"
    
19. Coulter labeled Dems who question qualifications of Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas as "racist"
    
20. Coulter: Canada is "lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent"; Carlson: "Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras"
    
21. FOX peddles false report that California school "banned Declaration of Independence because it mentions God"
    
22. Rush Limbaugh on the Abu Ghraib photos: "I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?"
    
23. Michael Savage: "When you hear 'human rights,' think gays. ... [T]hink only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son."
    
24. Oliver North: "Every terrorist out there is hoping John Kerry is the next president of the United States."
    
25. Pat Robertson on gays and lesbians: "[S]elf-absorbed hedonists ... that want to impose their particular sexuality on the rest of America."
    
26. Pat Buchanan: "[H]omosexuality is an affliction, like alcoholism."
    
27. Bill O'Reilly to Jewish caller: "[I]f you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel."
    
28. Jerry Falwell: "And we're going to invite PETA [to "wild game night"] as our special guest, P-E-T-A -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. We want you to come, we're going to give you a top seat there, so you can sit there and suffer. This is one of my special groups, another one's the ACLU, another is the NOW -- the National Order of Witches [sic]. We've got -- I've got a lot of special groups."

These people are more "party leaders" than even Dean is, and as your spokespeople should either be discredited or affirmed by the party -- the latter generally being the case.  So where's the outrage?  If Democrats ever used anything so extreme as the mainstream Republicans engage in every day, your heads would spin like the girl from Excorcist.

Certainly the language is toned down by the Republicans in Congress who share these views, but the policies they propose certainly jibe with this fascist outlook (I mean "fascist" in the same way y'all call liberals "socialists", which they aren't -- how many liberals need to be persecuted and systematically oppressed by socialists and communists before the Right finally understands this?)

Did Newt Gingrich ever refer the 50% of the country as "braindead" and "evil" or imply that they "never worked an honest day in their lives"?  If so, I may have missed that.

Plus, with Newt there was also a (very) liberal dose of policy thrown-in with the (pretty mild) vitriol.  With Dr. Howeird, it's a guaranteed, Atkins-friendly, steady diet of raw red steak with almost nothing in the way of what Democrats actually stand for as a party.

To attempt to answer my own question, about the only thing anyone has been able to come up with on Newt is a 1992 quote about Democrats being the enemy of ordinary Americans, or some such thing (I don't have the quote, but ChiMod dug it up and posted it here).  While certainly imprudently harsh coming from the guy who would be elected House Speaker 2-years later, that's pretty weak coffee compared to Howie's latest rantings, don't you think?

At least credit bonddad for the list.

I still don't see Ken Mehlman, Gillespie,W, or any party LEADER on this list.  

Nice try, thanks for playing.

There's no shortage of this kind of stuff.

Has got to be a violation of at least one of the posting rules, eh?

Asserting that Savage, Rush, Coulter, North, Robertson, et al. are more "party leaders" than even Dean is has to further be an indication that:

1. someone is off their meds today, and/or
   
   
2. someone has no flipping idea what they are talking about

Happy trails, comrade.

Calling Democrats "the enemy of ordinary Americans" is considered weak?  The Gingrich era is hard to Google, but that certainly wasn't the only inflammatory thing he said.  There is no upside for the Democrats to release their proposals now, as nobody is paying attention and they won't get enacted.  The time for Democrats to release their proposals is summer-fall 2006, not long before the elections, much like the GOP did with the Contract With America.  That's when people will be paying attention.  Until then, the best Democrats can do politically is to attack Republicans.

Sorry, but I think that referring to a bunch of elected officials as the "the enemy of ordinary Americans" (while stupid, harsh, unhelpful and inaccurate) is substantially weaker than describing 50-million Americans who happen to call themselves republicans as "evil" and "braindead".

Care to make a gentleman's bet that the Democrat proposals released in the summer-fall of 2006 will look a great deal like the democrat-proposals of the spring-summer of 2005 - that is to say, precisely zero?

But hey, being the "anti" party worked well for the GOP from 1956-1993, so go right ahead and be my guest.

Gotta run - actual work to do.

Honestly, when did John Kerry get re-assigned to the "moderate" camp. Lieberman was the amorphous moderate in the primary. I liked him. I may very well have voted for him. He was the Clintonite heir. Dems decided to take a left turn at Albequrque and go with Kerry while booing the amorphous moderation of Lieberman. If 2004 is a rallying cry that Kerry was too moderate, I really do have to say Rs don't have much to worry about.

Amorphous moderates are the only Dems who have one in the past 25 years on a national level.

Howard Dean (D- Moonbatland), openly professes his hatred for political opponents. He strongly implies that they (we) are evil and lazy. And, being a good liberal, he accuses the GOP of being a racially exclusionary party.

This is backbone?

I call it insanity.

At least we can agree on something.

As to your out-of-context quotes, that you obviously ripped off from another lefty loser site, enjoy selling the swill where swill is desired.

Ciao,