« Slow For a Reason | Main | Neat Trick Busted »
November 04, 2004
Party Clue
I had hoped that the Democratic party would get a clue after the election results became clear, but I guess not.
"It's not about soul-searching," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat. "It may be about how we can educate the American people more clearly on the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Hate to pee in your Wheaties Nancy, but that's not the problem. We rubes in flyover country understand the difference all too well. We disagree, that's the real problem.
Some, however, do appear to get it.
Republicans "were actually winning in areas that were historically Democratic areas," [Senator] Dodd said. Democrats have to realize that they didn't connect with voters on values, he said, and that they cannot concede that ground and win.
As usual, Zell Miller put it best.
"When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt?" he asked. "Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years."
(To digress for a moment, I've seen a lot of questioning around about why Arkansas went for Bush, since the Dems had both Edwards & Clinton campaigning here. I'll tell you why. There are few things more loathed in Arkansas than a trial lawyer, no matter where he's from. Edwards was a liability here. And Clinton doesn't have that kind of power here anymore. There were too many people glad to get rid of him, for one. For another, he's a former president. He has little quo to exchange for qid pro, you might say.)
Another important factor in this election was the persistent stonewalling of judicial candidates. I think a lot of people from both parties saw that as unreasonable, that the Democrats were wrongly blocking qualified candidates solely because they were proposed by Bush.
Several Democrats said they won't forgo legislative tactics to block Republican initiatives, including the filibuster in the Senate. Republicans are counting on their expanded majority to make Democrats "think twice."
They better think twice. If they persist with those filibusters, they are going to lose even more congressional seats in the next election.
The biggest Democrat problem is that they've moved farther to the left while the majority of the country has moved to the right....part of the inevitable continual pendulum swing of majority values. We swung slightly to the left in the 60's, back to the center in the 80's, and continued slightly to the right in the 90's. At some point, it will start swinging the other way. It's the nature of the beast.
Which is why the party closest to the center and on the majority side of the pendulum swing has always had the majority of the vote. And why the Democrats got smacked down in this election. They've moved too far away from the center. They must understand that this is what this election really meant.
It's essential for the survival of their party.
Posted by Rita at November 4, 2004 05:56 AM
Comments
Some of the Republicans' "values" scare the stuffing out of me and I hope the Democrats continue to do everything they can to prevent the appointment of Conservative judges. I voted for Bush but DAMN I really hated to. Kerry just wasn't a safe enough choice. We need Democrats to face up the facts of what is necessary to defend our country.
Posted by: Lynn S at November 4, 2004 12:52 PM
From what I can tell, fear is how Republicans get many of their votes. A significant portion of their base voted for Bush not because the Republicans offered much hope, but because the voters were terrified of 1) rampant abortions 2) rampant gays 3) rampant terrorists or 4) rampant taxes.
In exchange for a promise of protection from these fears, voters were willing to give up the prospect of various rights and hopes promised by Democrats. This is not a pleasant trend. Democrats hope. Republicans fear. That's the clearest distinction I can make of it all.
Posted by: Aaron at November 4, 2004 03:30 PM
What hopes did the Democrats offer? I didn't hear any. I did hear a lot of fear-mongering and lies - a lot more than I heard from the Republicans. People don't fear terrorists because the Republicans tell them to; they fear terrorists because they remember Sept. 11 and they've figured out that appeasement doesn't work. It was a very close thing for me. All Kerry had to do to get my vote was make it clear that he understands what is necessary to defend America. He didn't do that.
Posted by: Lynn S at November 4, 2004 07:18 PM
Hope? Hope of what? Socialized medicine? Increased income redistribution? A recession? I'm no fan of Bush's domestic policies, but at least his advisors understand that you don't improve the economy & increase jobs by increasing taxes on businesses & investors.....and increasing spending.
I'm happy if your rationalizations help you sleep at night, but your assumptions that I am scared, scary, stupid OR a Republican couldn't be more wrong. I am a pragmatist, or if you like, I am more accurately described as a slightly conservative centrist. I am only interested in which candidate is more likely to accomplish the duties of the position. I have never voted a straight party ticket in my life.
And for the record, I don't care which judges get appointed as long as they don't believe they have the power to legislate from the bench. Because they don't and shouldn't, whether they're 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
Posted by: rita at November 5, 2004 09:49 AM
"Hope? Hope of what? Socialized medicine? Increased income redistribution? A recession?"
Wow, you virtually parroted my list of fears that the Bush administration scared people with.
You didn't say "hope for better, less expensive health care, a more caring, supportive society, fairer treatment of the working class." These are the HOPES many who voted democrat had. The Republicans, from what I can tell, don't offer hopes like this. They just say "boo" and tell us that what democrats hope for will really be something terrifying, like "socialized medicine" or "income redistribution"
If they had competing alternatives, that'd be one thing. But as far as I can tell, they don't -- no hope, just recharacterizing the other side as terrifying and evil.
Who knows, maybe they're right, and the only thing to be done is shake with fear and let a few people get really rich protecting us from whatever we're terrified of today (drugsterroristsimmoralitycriminalscommunistsetc). That's what the tax dollars will go to, instead of hope, under Bush.
Finally, I'd take strong issue with the statement "People don't fear terrorists because the Republicans tell them to." In my opinion, that's the BIGGEST reason they fear terrorists -- spurred on by constant "warnings" and "threat levels."
Notice that the towns that were actually ATTACKED by terrorists voted for Kerry several times over. It was the heartland, the rural areas, shaken by endless "alerts" and constant warnings, that voted for Bush, even though there the least vulnerable to terrorists, really.
The laughable thing is, they're afraid of "socialized health care" when, in fact, lack of ANY health care kills WAY more people each year than terrorism ever has, or probably ever will. Again, Republicans are telling you what to fear; whatever threatens the pocketbooks of the rich.
Posted by: Aaron at November 5, 2004 05:54 PM
Aaron... I'll take you a little more seriously when you answer the question I have posed to you at least twice...
How did that BAR thing work out for you?
Hows about answering this one...
Are you a citizen of the United States or Canada? From what I can tell you believe in the canadien system and want to install it here but I've never been able to figure out if you are an American citizen. You said that you voted in this election but you may have just ignored an inconvienient law and voted illegally. That would look very bad on your BAR application as you have to actually be a lawyer before the BAR will ignore your felonies.
I also am NOT A REPUBLICAN... only twice, out of 18 elections, have I voted a straight ticket and once it was for the Dems. I outgrew that stupidity, maybe you can too.
Posted by: Mike S at November 5, 2004 07:16 PM
Hate to disappoint you, but if law school wasn't successful in brainwashing me, politicians aren't going to tell me what to think either. And I've dealt with government run health care systems for all of my life. They. Suck.
People fear terrorists because terrorists want to kill us. It's that simple. There's no scary secret government conspiracy about that. It's not just another plan to keep the brothers down. Best I can tell, the only ones who are scared by the Bush administration are people like you. But then I guess that's just because you're just so much smarter than the rest of us, right?
I gotta tell ya, Aaron, I've lived here for 44+ years. If you've all these hopes that you believe the Dems can fulfill, then put your hopes in one hand and spit in the other, see which one gets full first. They talk a good game, but historically they've no follow-through since FDR. Of whom I'm a big fan, BTW.
And I'm a big fan of people keeping most of what they work for. If they have the sense & the skills to get filthy rich, more power to 'em. The world only owes a living to those who are unable to make one for themselves....like the disabled. Everyone else needs to get off their ass and go to work like the rest of us.
Posted by: rita at November 5, 2004 07:30 PM
Mikey,
I have never failed a bar exam, if that's what you're asking. Also, I am an American citizen with a legal right to vote, as far as I know.
Rita,
We've been through this whole thing about health care before; I'm well aware that you're unmoved by the suffering caused by the current health care system in light of the fact that a universal, government-mandated one might be a little uncomfortable for the wealthy. That's not my point; I've given up trying to convince you to care about poor people you don't know. It's not your way.
My point is democrats hope for better; as far as I can tell, republicans are living in fear, and spreading fear to get more votes.
And why are you so afraid of terrorists? So disproportionately so? Terrorists have killed around 4,000 Americans in the past four years. How many people have died of disease/conditions that could have been prevented had they had health insurance? Significantly more than that, I'm sure, considering the tens of millions of people without insurance. Yet you don't bat an eye at those numbers.
Heck, as unwilling as you are to spend taxpayer money to save American lives in the health care industry, I'd think you'd be screaming in rage at the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars hurled in every direction in the middle east over the deaths of fewer people than get killed each year by drunk drivers.
But no, you're quivering in your boots over some muslims half a world away who've probably never even HEARD of Arkansas. "Spend whatever it takes, just make sure that they never kill 0.000001% of our coastal population again!"
Anyway ... it just confuses me, that's all, in light of your willingness to let people drop dead like flies without health insurance.
Posted by: Aaron at November 5, 2004 09:21 PM
Ok Mr. Hyperbole, let's have some data to back up your assertions. With all the gov't health insurance programs like Medicaid/Medicare, ArKidsFirst, OKkids, and the VA, there's no reason for the disabled, dirt poor or children to be uninsured. Everyone else can pay for their own, if they want it.
My concern about terrorists has to do with my proximity to 2 nuclear plants and the corporate headquarters of some of the biggest corporations in the world. Not to mention friends in such places as NYC. And you think I'm being ridiculous?
I've been poor for more years than you've been alive. And I know the way to help people out of poverty isn't to attach them more firmly to the government teat. It's to provide them with the education & training to get a better job.
You're making a lot of baseless assumptions about me personally that I'm starting to find really offensive, like:
"I've given up trying to convince you to care about poor people you don't know. It's not your way."
Just because I disagree with you on methodology doesn't give you any basis for or right to make that statement. You might remember I don't talk about everything I do on this blog BTW.
Posted by: rita at November 6, 2004 06:14 PM