Democratic Party, R.I.P.
Today, in one 24-hour period, I watched the Democrats
- Formally contest the results of a presidential election that Bush won by 3 millions votes,
- Attack a Hispanic nominee for AG because he didn't make nice-nice with al Qaeda terrorists, and
- Beg Terry McAuliffe to remain their leader for at least another two years.
What the hell? Is Karl Rove the DNC's chief strategist?
What is wrong with the Democrats?! President Bush is politically vulnerable on scores of issues, and yet the Democratic congress insists on attacking him on terrorism and questioning electoral victory that he won handily. What the hell are these people thinking?
My more cynical critics wonder why I care about these Democratic missteps. In the short term, I don't. I'm happy enough to have an enfeebled opponent. In the longer term, however, I think both our nation as a whole and my own political party benefit from vigorous competition.
Why do American automobiles not suck today? Because twenty years ago, when they did suck, they were exposed to competition from Japanese automakers. That spurred a drive to excellence on the part of Detroit that ultimately benefited American consumers. Likewise, in the long run, I think the Republican Party will benefit from competition with a viable alternative party.
Look, let's face it. The Republicans did not deserve re-election this year. I'm talking about the congressional leadership as well as the presidency. The only way they were allowed to stay in power was by facing an ineffectual, inept opposition party.
Sorry, but I don't want my party's future victories to transpire that way. I want them to be the results of intense competition between two viable political parties.
So Democrats: For your sake, for our sake, and for the sake of the country we all love, please, please, for the love of God, get your act together, and become an effective opposition. Put this election behind you, and pitch a message that's actually saleable to the American people.
Comments
The Democrats are wrong are #1 and #3, but they are right on #2. The US has used torture, and against innocent people. That's just dumb policy and the Democrats are right to call them on that.
Don't make the same mistakes the Democrats made with Clinton when they defended him in every situation, including Monicagate.
Bush is wrong on torture, and don't feel compelled to defend him there, just because you're a Republican.
Posted by: Downtown Lad | January 6, 2005 10:10 PM
Barry, it boils down to this: despite all the tough talk about jettisoning the far left fringe of Michael Moore, Ted Rall, et. al. they just cannot do so.
I think I saw that after all that pomposity in the senate, only Barbara Boxer voted against the norm. The final count was something along the lines of 75-1.
The Dems are in a total state of both flux and denial.
Flux because never in our lifetimes have they endured such a period of complete lack of power (my guess is we would have to go back to the Coolidge days of the mid-20s to find any parallel).
Denial because they still cannot accept that their hoary populist pap has no more efficacy that a week-old open bottle of Pepsi.
See, Barry, they have no Plan B. The "People vs. The Powerful" crap has been the modus operandi for decades now.
So what do they give us in 2004? The richest man ever to run for president. A man who, thanks to his wife, has something like six mansions, goes body surfing and who had about as much in common with the average American as J.P. Morgan did.
I have said before, the Democrats of today are not so much a party as an amalgam of special interests. Trial lawyers & unions, greens & gays, blacks, pro-choice just to highlight the biggies.
And heaven forbid if anybody dares to take one of them on. Ask Joe Lieberman who was emasculated in a span of 48 hours at the 2000 Dem convention by Maxine Waters for trying to be (gasp!) a moderate.
Hell, ask Howard Dean who actually recognized that the party's policies are a death wish in Southern states and said so. He was forced to apologize the following day for daring to be a heretic.
Hence, today's activities should come as no surprise. My old party is in the middle of their 40 years in the desert. Their brilliant response is to ask Terry McAuliffe, a man who has presided over three devastating losses in three election periods, to return.
This is akin to having Mel Brook's 'Moses' from "History of The World, Part I" lead the way.
I can hear them now:
"Which vay? Dis vay?"
"No! That vay!"
Posted by: mal | January 6, 2005 10:25 PM
As to #1, there were some egregious breaches in election law according to Ohio's own laws. They should be investigated. That doesn't change the results. I don't know that anyone really believes that it would. But we had voters purged in Florida in 2000. And that was just plain wrong. And in Ohio it appears as if Blackwell, at the very least, had piss poor management of the election. When issues like this come up, as a democracy we should all want to change things so that such doesn't happen again, regardless of who was disenfranchised. Enough people voluntarily choose not to vote. We should do all we can to encourage everyone to vote. Not encourage behavior that frightens voters from the polls. So I wanted to see a challenge not to change the election, but so that we could finally get something done about the irregularities and have some real reform. What can I say? I'm a dreamer?
Well, you already know I think that the issue of the torture memos should be addressed. I am sure some are using this to make a political point, but I believe that some do truly feel that this needs resolution. According to your favorite paper, torture was being used fairly early on and that someone in charge had to or at least should have known. I think that's worthy of discussion. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
No argument re: #3. I am still flabbergasted.
Posted by: K | January 6, 2005 11:53 PM