The media continue to be fascinated by the divisions among Democrats over why they lost in November. In the New York Times Adam Nagourney surveys about a half-dozen different theories, from the familiar "values-voter" interpretation to Nancy Pelosi’s no doubt comforting "the Republicans just did a better job at getting out the vote" theory. Meanwhile Ronald Brownstein at the LA Times focuses on the exchanges that have been taking place in liberal journals.
In spite of the risk of being called a racist, the fact that Sharpton, and jesse jackson are prominent in the democrat party says all there is to say.
A party that embraces these buffons, and canonizes Jimmy Carter will never be able to attract enough voters.
Kerry and Kennedy are bad enough, but come on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson getting a free pass to respectability?
What are "buffons"??
Fred - you’re right. You do run that risk. But not because you are a racist. The liberal playbook seems to say that a black man cannot possibly be outrageous, and any criticism of him is born out of a racist heart. The simple fact is that these two guys are just plain nuts. I’d toss in Micheal Moore in there too since he was honored by sitting next to Carter at their convention.
Newt Gingrich had a great comment on Ms. Pelosi and the others in her party on the other coast. Middle Americans, by and large, are part of the ownership society. They own a house, a car, and a 401(k). They value church and the spoken word.
Ms. Pelosi is from San Fran. Her constituents, by and large, rent, lease a car, maybe have a 401(k) but ridicule those with money. They don’t go to church and parse words to death for nuanced meanings (what "is" is and such). When the party leader speaks outside San Fran, she’s talking to people that have no idea what she’s talking about and don’t identify with her values. He concludes we are at the beginning of a republican majority for at least another generation. I agree.
the Democrats loss cannot be viewed as resulting from one-variable. this is a classic multi-variable problem where several issues played on each other to affect individual voters. Yes, some abhore the nuanced view of the left and the inability of Kerry to stick to a position magnified that distaste. For others, the erosion and steady attack on traditional Christian values was enough to make them back a President that does not seem to hold all the usual right-leaning principals. No doubt the continuing spectical of the UN abbasement figures in. As does the MSM’s preference for spin over facts. Given the total lack of unifying vision in the Democratic party, it is no wonder that their their strength among voters is fragmenting.
My suggestion to the DNC. First decide who you are. If you have to jettison some of your support, so be it. Let them form a new party. Them rebuild your image. It’s a grand experiment, in which you may fail to capture the public’s approval. Atleast you will havegiven it an honest attempt. That will count for more than you think.
Logrolling is what it is all about. Few people get everything they want and could. Dean, Michael Moore’s success, Al Sharpton at the democratic convention, in short the "Angry Democrat" did far more for Bush than it did for Kerry. So in a way I agree with Nancy Pelosi the republicans did a better job of getting out the vote, but it was the democratic effort that did so, while the republican effort did not alienate Democrats in an energizing way.
In short I believe some democrats stayed home because they felt insulted by the scare tactics used to get them to vote for what they considered to be two marginal candidates, in an overhyped election. On the other hand Republicans were more prone to like Bush and thus take the threat of him loosing more seriously especially when aggitated by all the democrat noise.
I believe that if all the media resembled FoxNews, Bush would have lost the election. Because then americans would have felt the spin was better than reality and that Bush was actually getting a free ride vs.(the actuality) the spin being worse than some people are single issue and won’t compromise. If the republican party wants to dominate for another generation what this really means is that it will have to be something different from state to state and from time to time. A sizeable number of Democrats probably voted against Bush instead of for Kerry because of opposition to Iraq. A sizeable number All the anti-bush groups might have succeded in being the biggest turn out getters for Bush, a lot of people in this group I believe did not vote because the character of these groups does not lend itself to voting but to bitching about socio-economics. Republicans probably voted against Kerry because of Abortion, supreme court justices ext... I think people voted more out of a dislike for a particular candidate or groups that supported him, than for any particular platform.
For example I believe that the existence of NOW brings more votes to the republican party than it brings to the democrats, after all abortion is legal, so when NOW is outraged by President Bush and makes this public, it energizes the religious right and brings them together around Bush more so than the anticipated endorsement of Bush by ProLife everthe reality and Bush getting a bad shake in dealing with in a difficult post Sept 11 environment.
In short Bush won because the Media is biased. (after all it couldn’t bring itself to scrutinize its own statistics long enough to question a probable Kerry presidency, it saw what it wanted so the science stopped.)