*Yes, this sounds right. I prefer to think their vaccum philosophy is their problem...but this arguement is an interesting one to consider. http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/WilliamRusher/2006/08/29/the_trouble_with_democrats The bookstores, journals of opinion and newspaper Op Ed pages are chockfull, these days, of books and articles on the subject of "What's Wrong With the Democrats?" It isn't that they are believed to be at death's door. On the contrary, they are widely regarded as likely to wrest control of the House of Representatives from the Republicans this November, and substantially improve their situation in the governorships and state houses. But, given the problems President Bush is facing in Iraq, the general deterioration of the situation in the Middle East, the threat posed by North Korea, the various incidents of corruption that have been breaking out in the executive branch and (mostly, though not entirely, among Republicans) in Congress, plus the fact that the generally healthy economy is overshadowed in the public's eyes by the continued high price of gasoline, the wonder is that the Democrats aren't widely considered sure to seize control of both houses of Congress in November and throw the Republican rascals out of the White House in 2008. Instead, the Democrats seem totally out of fresh ideas for improving matters either at home or abroad, and many confess to fearing that Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for their presidential nomination in 2008, would lose to any one of several possible Republican nominees. What is the explanation for this seeming paralysis? If they can't win now, when can they? I think the explanation may lie, at least in part, in the structure the two major parties have assumed in recent years. The Democrats have become, more and more, largely a coalition of minorities, each with its own special agenda. The first of these was the African-Americans, who regularly cast about 90 percent of their votes for the Democrats. Also early on the scene was a large, disaffected segment of the intelligentsia, dominant in the universities and angry at the failure of the country to recognize its superiority and its right to rule. Then came the ultra-feminists, the abortion supporters, the gay lobby, the environmental extremists and a newly vocal pack of secularists, openly hostile to religion and furious at the alleged efforts of the "religious right" to impose a "theocracy" on society. These are the groups that dominate the national Democratic Party today. They can and do work together, but each has its own individual set of preoccupations, which may not always be shared by its allies. (Many black Democrats, for example, are no friends of the pro-abortion crowd or the gay lobby, let alone the secularists.) As a result, the party's policy initiatives tend to reflect the interests of its individual components, rather than any larger interests that a comfortable majority of the nation's voters have in common. What groups of voters, then, are left to the Republicans to appeal to and identify with? Well, the whites, for one. (The last Democratic candidate to win a majority of the white vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, nearly half a century ago.) Men, for another. (There's a lot of talk about the "gender gap," but in recent elections the margin by which men vote Republican has exceeded that by which women vote Democratic.) And married people favor the Republicans by a wide margin -- especially couples with children. So, too, do small businessmen (leaving George Soros and his ilk as the champions of the Democrats). Do you begin to get the picture? Recently, the hotter Democratic activists have fastened onto a new issue, which they hope may have more traction with the average American voter. It is a demand that America pull out of Iraq. Sometimes it is presented delicately, as a proposal to "redeploy" our forces there to some other, unstated destination by a certain date. Sometimes it is put forward more baldly, as the only way to force the Iraqis to defend themselves. Lots of Americans have their doubts about our presence in Iraq. But I doubt whether becoming known as "the bug-out party" is what the Democrats really need to add to their current reputation with the American people.
Drudge had a quote from carville the other day. Something to the effect of: If democrats can't win in this situation; we need to re-examine the whole premise of the party. I think the dems will be some re-examining post November. They may win a few seats in the house and/or senate, but a takeover of one or another is unlikely, I think. Unless they win (and win big in Nov), the price of their souls may have been too high.
He's said that before. Problem is, last time he said it, they didn't learn any better then, either. History will repeat itself. They will cry "voter election fraud" again, without realizing their own voter fraud from the last election. They will blame it on Karl Rove, the voting machines and any/everything, but the lack of values their party stands for. That's what they do. Then their tears will flow down their cheeks and the typical "we're moving out of the US" threats will follow. The media will once again portray them as victims and the show goes on. From the article above: When they start taking national security seriously. Instead, the few sane peole they have left in the party, like Joe Lieberman, are swept under the carpet and discarded in favor of those whose talking points resemble our enemies. Thank God America is smart enough to know that dems don't take national security seriously. Next to terrorists, the single biggest threat to our country are democrats (with the invasion of liberal moonbats taking over their party) in power. They need to get rid of people like Nancy Pelosi, who work hard to intentionally divide our country with tactics like these. There's no leadership in that approach. Lead by example, Nancy. All she did with that interview is reinforce why our country cannot afford to have this party in power.
The entire premis of the 2004 election was that GW was a stupid monkey and any reasonably intelligent monkey could beat him. What they didn't count on was the mass of stupid monkies in the local American population. They don't need a platform. They just need to work harder at convincing America that GW is stupid and everyone who votes for him is stupid. And who wants to be stupid? Really. It's the best idea ever! It almost worked last time. ------------------------------------ "in favor of those whose talking points resemble our enemies." I'm not sure that the terrorists had the talking points until the left wrote them up for them. If parents try to justify why a kid acts the way they do, soon you'll hear the kid spouting off the same excuses. I'm pretty sure that's what happened here. Our enemies will of course agree to any excuse that gets people off their back.
The dems need a solid platform or else all they'll have is a temporary victory. It didn't almost work in 2004, it was much closer in 2000...but I guess that's a matter of whether one thinks the votes were correct in 2004.
Hilary can't be it. That would trigger memories of a betrayed wife by her pimp presidential husband, and the last remains of the american credibility would be lost in no time. - Bingo -