The Democrats Still Don't Get It
This article is very enlightening on why the Democrats keep losing elections. Just for fun, let's point out the...the...well, idiocy!
Democrats "as a group are uneasy" about attacking and defending on character, says Harold Ickes, a former Clinton aide who heads the Media Fund, a political ad organization. "But they damn well better get the stomach," he adds, because "we've seen way too many of our candidates taken down on issues of character."
There are two idiocies here. Uneasy about attacking character? It seems to me that the 2000 drunk driving story is character based. I'd say painting Bush as a National Guard coward and deserter is the same thing...and don't even get me started on Rathergate. The second idiocy is candidates taken down on character issues. Could it be, maybe, that the Democratic Presidential nominees just sucked in general? John Kerry was so strewn with flaws (X-mas in Cambodia, "returning" his medals, too wonkish, couldn't connect with public, really did flip-flop a bit, Theresa, orange skin, etc, etc, etc), it is a bit incredible to blame his loss solely on character assassination by the Republicans.
managed to brand them as unpatriotic (Michael Dukakis, the "card-carrying" member of the ACLU), untruthful (Al Gore (news - web sites), the "serial exaggerator") and unprincipled and weak (Kerry, the "flip-flopper" who couldn't be trusted to keep the nation safe). All are variations on a theme: These men have character flaws that disqualify them for the White House
Well...yes...on all counts. I fail to see how any of that was branding, though. The article implies that none of those traits was true. But, we all know Dukakis was a liberal - he said so. We all know Gore exaggerated - Love Canal, inventing the internet. We all know Kerry was a flip-flopper - he voted for it before he voted against it. I would hardly say that pointing out character flaws in branding. Plus, when did he truth become a "theme?"
This one is really funny. Mr. West's quote, within the context of the article, implies that the Democrats are surprised that the Republicans attack character, rather than the truth - Democrats keep nominating unelectable candidates with character flaws. Every day, I look in the mirror and I am surprised I'm white! I keep wondering how the mirror manages to do that.
Ruy Teixeira, co-author of The Emerging Democratic Majority, says Kerry's silence on the Vietnam ads "gave voters the impression that where there's smoke, there's fire, and why didn't this guy defend himself?" When the campaign finally fought back, he says, the delay suggested it was done out of political necessity, not because the charges were baseless.
There are a number of funnies in this paragraph. Ruy Teixeira?? Is that really a name? "The Emerging Democratic Majority?" HA, HA, HA, HA, HA. Plus, he did respond to the ads because of political necessity. Then, tried to counter with Rathergate - see, you're getting me started.
So, the gyst of the article, actually, the main point, is that John Kerry lost the election because the Republicans are evil and mean. They pointed out is many and obvious character flaws!!! How dare they?!?!?! Obviously, the Democrats have no chance of winning an election anytime soon. Until they figure out that they possess a certain moral bankruptcy, they'll never put forth a candidate worth voting for.
Think about it, George Bush is a polarizing figure. Many, many people hate him. I posit that George Bush was responsible for about 90% of the voter turnout this time around. 52% of the people loved him enough to show up and vote, the other 38% hated him enough to show up and vote for "the other guy." The Democrats could have run anyone and the results of the election would be the same. That tells me that John Kerry wasn't worth voting for as much as George Bush was worth voting against.
posted by Chris Farley @ 7:35 AM
<< Home