• Marccooper5_1

Back To Home Page

« 8:30 PM Update: Water in the Submarine | Main | Here We Go: Denial and Delusion »

Wednesday, November 03, 2004



Very good article and some good comments throughout.

There seems to be an ongoing delusion that if the left could've just framed their message in a different way - or used a more insipiring messenger - the election could've gone differently.

What's been humorous about this election, is how far the left has been pushed in abadoning classic liberal values. During the 70's and 80's, the left was stauchly opposed to 'puppet regimes' that the US was helping prop up in South America and the Mid-East.

Because of the nature of a dual-party system, when the Right seized upon a new way of thinking (correctly in my mind), that using stability as the excuse for propping up despotic regimes was not a good long-term strategy. Amusingly, the left relented with the belief that they needed to take the 'opposite' position.

Now the left is proudly -- and without any irony -- stating that we should've allowed Sadaam to stay in power and dealt with him on a more diplomatic level. Stability uber alles.

The humor is such that most on the left have no real idea what their own party is about, only that they are against whatever the republicans are for. When that is your central ideology, "We are not Republicans", expect to get beat in every election.

The right has managed to 'embrace and extend' many of the core beliefs that have been traditional liberal values (civil-rights, immigration, global democratic initiatives). To wit, the standard Demorcrat response has been to cut and run to the other side of the issue.

This is a party that is bereft of beliefs and is poll-driven to such an extent that there are no 'core values' to rally the troops around.

Welcome to the vacumm you have created. Listen to the echoes.


Let me get this right...58 million people (the first majority vote for President since 1988) reject the Dem position, sweep Democrats from the House, Senate, Presidency; and now hold the governorships of the four largest states in the Union, demolish the Senate minority leader, and you blame the ignorant people? No - that's a basic failure to take responsibility for your actions. Wake up! The reason that the Dems were rejected in record-setting numbers was that they had a poor candidate, a worse platform (was there one other than ABB?), and were the arrogant dividers that you claimed that the Bush Administration was. The Ba'athists in Iraq have been hanging on by their fingernails praying for a Kerry victory. Even Osama quoted Michael Moore! Unless the Dems come up with a coherent position on what they actually believe in not just default to the class warfare garbage of
"fight, obstruct, stop," and generally segregate yourselves, you will continue to suffer the fate of Dashle and Kerry. How will the Dems actually reach out and build a bigger coalition that actually looks to the future, not into the politics and ideas of the past? Answer that, and the Dems might have a future. Forget the conspiracy theories, the whining, all the rest. The Dems did this one all by themselves.

Jon Wiener

Kerry's one memorable line: "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
He was right about that.

Weiner John

Jon, "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."

Are you being sacrastic? Or are you serious?

Great line, next time just don't "Vote for it, before you Vote against it."


On foreign policy, the Dems have to have a more active vision than: oppose whatever Bush does, and consult the UN and Europe ten times before acting. They also have to muzzle the Michael Moore wing of the party. As Marc said, when you best spokesperson is literally a clown, no one is going to take you seriously.

John Moore (Useful Fools)

Like usual, blank throws out a silly insult. Blank, I don't know if you were alive for the Vietnam anti-war movement, but I was. And I went to a couple of demonstrations as a Vietnam Veteran. I also knew some anti-war leaders.

Most of them were sincere people, misguided in my opinion, but good people nonetheless. Kerry was not and he was substantially more damaging to the country and to Vietnam Veterans. So when I say I have no problem with many anti-war leders, I don't. I went to a peace march in San Francisco of 300,000 people. It was organized by useful fools, people who honoestly believed that ending the war was best. It was hijacked by the radical left, including the VVAW.

A cause can have good and bad people both working for the same end. If someone is genuine but in my opinion mistaken, why should I condemn them?

It looks like some here are blaming the voters. That won't get you anywhere. Neither will assuming that Bush (or Rove) tricked them. Bush underwent a hell of a lot more scrutiny by a media biased against him than did Kerry by a media biased for him. Somehow the voters saw through some of that nonsense.

Jerry said it best when he described the bizarre collection of people who push the Democratic party around. They are your problem. Break free of evil idiots like Michael Moore and your many rich but stupid contributors from Hollywood, and ask yourself just what sort of party you are, when infamous currency speculator Soros is bankrolling your efforts. Ignore the professors, they don't have a clue. Politics is the art of the possible, not the theoretical.

Today, the Democratic party is far to the left of Americas center. To some extent it gets away with that due to disinformation from the main stream media, college kids who have been dazzled by elegant leftist political theories which don't actually work, and because many democrats absorbed some of the sillier leftist tropes so deeply they don't even realize they are accepting it. Finally, throw out 99% of the conspiracy theories.

The press constructed a conspiracy theory about the Swift Boat Veterans. It tooks tenuous threads and interpreted them as strong connections. It then used that theory to paint 60 eyewitnesses as liars or dupes. It is that sort of theorizing that leads to wrong conclusions (I know first hand that this theory is wrong).

Under Clinton, people on the right formed conspiracy theories. Vince Foster was murdered; So was Ron Brown; Clinton was tied to CIA cocaine smuggling through Mena, Ark. Etc. These ideas had wide following, even though the evidence didn't support them.


Oh, I wish I were an Oscar Mayer Wiener.
Then the buns would really relish me.
I would make the mustard glad,
And the other wieners sad,
And Oscar Mayer would stand up and shout with glee.


Could there possibly have been an incumbent more easy to knock-off than George W. Bush?

Umm, apparently not.


Sure do appreciate the honesty of David Corn's most recent post (as of this time): (Live (Sort Of) From Boston, It's the Day After...)

"Right now I have one thought on my mind: get to the airport, get to my car, drive home, and see the wife and my wonderful daughters. I am lucky to have such consolation. It's not my ass in an unreinforced Humvee in Iraq. I'm not worried about losing childcare or school lunch subsidies for my family. I have a decent (if not great) health care plan. I'm not watching my job go overseas. (It's hard to outsource punditing.) I was able to marry the person I love. I will never need an abortion. You get the picture."

Anyone here who IS worried about/dealing with any of those things? If not, don't be so quick to blast those of us who are.


from the UK/Guardian:

"The US electorate gets a universally bad press around the world. When it does make what we define as the right decision it is deemed more accident than wisdom. Americans are seen as unsophisticated, wilfully ignorant, obsessed with such issues as abortion, guns and gay marriage, and wedded to a device which seems calculated to impede the wishes of the majority - the electoral college. Mixed in with this are the demands of the American commonwealth, its global reach and the power to consume a far greater share of the earth's resources than is fair."



If you're looking to reform/rethink/re-whatever the Democratic Party, I suggest starting with the last Democrat to demonstrably win nationwide. Bill Clinton remains actively involved in the party, and has shown a capacity for shaping it to meet popular demand. Is there a way to get him more involved in such an effort again? (Other than as the spouse of a candidate, I mean.)

John Moore (Useful Fools)

Basic rule of warfare, helpful in politics: never underestimate your opponent.

Am I right that every leftist commenter on here is opposed to the Iraq invasion? If so, I would suggest you consider that perhaps lots of good people disagree, and not because they are idiots, and analyze whatever odd theory you have as to why the war was fought.

Until you understand why Bush went into Iraq, again, you have a problem understanding American politics.


1000 troops die in an "unjust" war and its enough to get the left angry to the point of being unhinged.
40,000,000 babies are flushed away since Roe Vs. Wade and you shrug your shoulders. Who cares? - they're not human - and, anyway all evangelical christians are lunatics aren't they?

If I even mention that I am against abortion at my place of work (a large American multinational) I get screeched at by women no-one in their right mind would even consider dating - let alone impregnating.
What I am saying is that the left just got the inevitable backlash for decades of disregard for those whom Jesus said were most in need of protection.
Bush brought out 25m bible readers because he seeks to protect those whom nobody else will.
And those 25m people will keep Democrat hands off the levers of power for the next 25 years.


Hi folks- I am a former democrat who voted for Bush this time and I would like to chime in here.

I was a lifelong Democrat. I voted for Clinton and Gore, and voted for Gore in 2000. The family I grew up in were die-hard Democrats. We all had similar beliefs and pride. We held the idea of sharing our goods with our neighbors; of taking care of people less fortunate than us. Moving America forward was always the mantra. Being progressive.

I forgave Clinton for lying to us about the Monica scandal. I figured-hey- this had nothing to do with our nation's safety, so let it go. What I didn't realize was how complacent Clinton had been with our enemies.

I was shocked after the 2000 election-and ashamed of the antics of my party leadership. Although I wanted my guy (Gore) to win, I was well aware that he was moving this issue, not we the people.

In the months after 9-11, I began hearing some pretty nasty things from the Democrats in Congress. The partisan verbage really got to me.
I began to hear things that led me to believe that my party was not really taking the attacks seriously.

The likes of Michael Moore and company do not represent me. Martin Sheen and The Dixie Chicks and company all spoke up against any action against Iraq-simply to get "in" with the very liberal side of my party. They were trying to make money by bashing our national security, in my mind. Thats not the party I had come to love and be a proud member of. No not at all. The screaming hysterics, the lies, the movie-all of it just turned me off. Hollywood is not the heart and soul of the America I love. Hollywood is awesome at making us movies, not making national policy.

My feeling is that the party has been hijacked by an almost radical left wing... The party has no cohesive statement, and it certainly does not represent the average working American. Many who speak for the party are filthy rich and elite, and have no idea what my life is really like. I veiw them as phoney, and Kerry is the very epitome of this elite. Hence, I could not vote for him at all. He was/is too stiff, too uncomfortable when he is in our presence. And frankly, his ideas about this "global test" really cinched it for me.

NO president should give a hoot what other nations think. Yes- we need to work with our neighbors and we need to consider their issues. We need to be helpful and we need to offer aid. But we do not need permission or approval to defend ourselves.

I guess this is where the divide is for me. The Democrat party could not show me that it would secure my country. Rather, it threatened (and for me, it was a threat) to subvert our security to the UN or France or wherever.

All the lies and rumors being spread-that draft will come back; Bush will turn us into Facists; abortion will be outlawed; all our jobs will be outsourced- ect ect- just turned me right off.
And Howard Dean-he is one of biggest rumor mongors of them all. He does not represent the party I once called my own.

Maybe the current Democrat party thinking- should look at joining another party. You folks don't have the same values that many of us former Democrats have. This is not an insult, rather-something to think about. I don't know what to say. The current party is, for me, full of con arists who lead you. Full of hate and revenge. Not a kind and caring people like they used to be. No, todays Democrat party has been hijacked.

(ready to be bashed, called a facist, threatened, ect-I have gotten used to this reaction by my former party-mates)


Bibles, abortion, gay marriage....

None of these is why you lost. NONE. The dynamic prevails! There is a cyclical dynamism to politics in this country, orbiting the middle, but swinging right and left, dependent on the prevailing zeitgeist.

But, the reason that I, like many other Republicans is sad today is that the Dems didn't field a candidate who believed in his positions, was firm in his positions, was willing to try to convince others of his rightness without insults, avoided ad hominem attacks, and didn't act like a superior asshole, who uses terms like progressives to describe the very regressive belief that government should do it all!

I await the blasts of flame, but my party is better when your party is better at communicating, cajoling, convincing and governing without the air of condecension, superiority and completely lack of touch with the pulse of the people that was John Kerry.

I'm not a bible-thumper, but believe, that perhaps, abortion may be wrong. I don't agree that it should be outlawed, but think instead of what government can do to make abortion unnecessary, or at least rare.

I believe that government, in America, exists at the current time, across both sides of the aisles, to perpetuate itself and it's hold on power at the detriment to my rights.

Dan J

as a Republican in the political spectrum, obviously I am pleased with the election. more important is our country though. a house divided will never stand and we are a house divided. we have different cultures and thought processes that lead us to continually butt heads against one another and keep the status quo the status quo. I am an evangelical Christian, you know, the root cause of all evil on earth to most Democrats. As a group we have a different view of the world than most Democrats and obviously we believe we are right in that belief and we act on it. I am not holding my breath for all Democrats to suddenly "see the light" and embrace what they do not see. I would hope that Democrats and Republicans both would seek to emphasize what we agree on. Not all Republicans are greedy selfish violent morons. In fact, I can't think of any that I know. But obviously on both extremes there is enough lunacy. if we as a nation would seek together a strong nation militarily, social justice (and by that I mean equal opportunity for all, NOT guaranteed results. a person must be reponsible for their decisions) for those who cannot defend or take care of themselves, and a willingness to do what is right regardless of whether of how popular it is in the world, we can be a nation of those who disagee, not one of those who hate each other. and I know others will immediately disagree with some of the things I have said, but let's make starting points, not dwell on endings.


Raven...Well said!


I think that the roots of the Democrat defeat yesterday were laid down in waning days of the Gore v Bush debacle in 2001. The powers-that-be in the Party, themselves upset and angry about their loss, decided for tactical reasons to fan the flames of anger and frustration in the defeated Demmocrat troops and tried to deligitimize the Bush Presidency: "Selected, not Elected!" "pResident Dunce!" "Bush is a Cokehead/deserter/moron/etc.!" all of these raw, angry emotions were fanned by the DNC under Terry McAuliffe and sometimes actually instigated. The goal was to "whip up the troops" and more importantly keep those dimes and nickels flowing into party coffers.

Whipping up an angry mob might have keep the money flowing but it didn't give direction or focus to the party beyond lynching President Bush. A party bereft of all ideas except, "GET BUSH!" is no political party at all. The anger lead to a brief flirtation with Dean but cooler heads prevailed and selected Kerry instead because he was deemed "electable" according to some arcane theory no one has ever been able to explain. But Kerry himself was bereft of ideas or values beyond winning the general election so you were left with nothing but your hatred to drive you on.

Elections aren't won on hatred. Elections are won on ideas, on connecting to the common man, on getting the vote out, on doing the grungey work involved in selling your ideas to a largely disinterested public. You never came up with a better reason for electing Kerry other than he "isn't Bush!" as if that alone would be enough. That he was a deeply flawed candidate from a minor NE state with few electoral votes to contribute to the cause didn't register on your hate-addled brains.

If you had come to your senses and nominated someone like Gephardt I might be the one attending pity-parties tonight. Or perhaps not; if Dick had run his campaign on the "I'm not George Bush!" slogan GWB might have picked up the extra votes somewhere to make up for the loss of Missouri. It all comes down to having and executing a clear, positive, forward-looking message during the campaign and the Bush haters simply didn't have one.


"40,000,000 babies are flushed away..."

"I get screeched at by women no one would even consider dating, much less impregnating..."

"...when I say I have no problem with many anti-war leders, I don't. I went to a peace march in San Francisco of 300,000 people. It was organized by useful fools..."

"(Martin Sheen and the Dixie Chicks) were trying to make money by bashing our national security."

"...acts like a superior asshole who uses terms like progressive to desscribe the regressive belief that government should do it all."


eager to know

"My feeling is that the party has been hijacked by an almost radical left wing."

I absolutely need to know what you're on and get some myself!


Yeah, Gephardt would have really done the trick. And anyone who thinks that Kerry was nominated because he was the prime exponent of "Bush-bashing" is, in a word, an ignoramus not worth taking seriously. (Okay, that was 5 words.)

The comments above from pro-Bush folks would be disappointing if they weren't so typical and predictable.


A genuine thank you to the lone, kind voice of Dan J for reaching across the fence.

John Moore (Useful Fools)

Well, it's clear that COMMENT isn't going to learn anything from all of this.

That's find. If the dems don't learn, they'll continue to be obstructionist with their dwindling last strongholds in the house and senate, and it will be a Republican century.

COMMENT - your right wing buddies were trying to explain something to you about why you lost.

My reason is that once people start to come closer to reality, sometimes they leave the left. And the bunch here is pretty doctrinaire left - way too far left to ever win a national election in the US. But there are lots of Democrats who are not so far left, otherwise the party would be getting the same vote share as the Libertarians.

Have fun crying in your beer.


I mostly agree, and would like to add the following:

Take a look at all the red states. This country is a sea of red, mostly. What Bush did was to connect with the public's set of values. 11 propositions limiting marriage to mean between a man and a woman, all passed. Not just half of them....all of them. That isn't a DNC value by a long shot. Perceived personal integrity also did in Kerry -- He had, by his own admission, committed acts of treason and sedition, and given aid and comfort to our enemies in Viet Nam....not something even closely approved by the majority's value set. I really don't think there is any one item, or event, that one could point at and say "that is what cost Kerry the election", but I think it was his moral values, and the values of the DNC, as reflected and adopted by the MSM, and the fact that they didn't even come close to those who live in the red states. Bush was perceived as having those values, and Kerry was not.

....just my $0.02 worth.

Jim from New Jersey

TomC makes a point, and it would be really nice to hear Democrats respond.

Many Christians find the practice of abortion to be murder. Hence, they rule out Democrats immediately. They/I also see the numbers accumulating each year and regard it as slaughter in our midst. If we believe this, how can't you be considered a party of sadistic ghouls?

The answer I perceive is that Christians are strange and something to be ridiculed (the ones who aren't black). The last target-rich group in our insufferably anal retentive society.

If Democrats have no interest in this group, what national prospects do they have? However, making room in the party for those with moral objections could severely undercut Republicans.

That's the goal, right?


You're absolutely right, John. There is nothing to be learned listening to nutcases such as yourself who, literally, hate the rest of us who see through your propaganda, your half-baked history and your tortured, consistently foolish "analysis". Go back to lecturing people who aren't capable of seeing you for the political basketcase that you are.

The comments to this entry are closed.