Democrats & Liberals: Archives

LOL!!! Good one, Woody.

Somebody hadda say it.

I don’t get it.

I know it is an attempt at irony, but the Democrats have never actually made up for the ass whuppin’ they got in 1984. Never after has any Democrat won more than half of the popular vote and since then they have decisively lost control of both Houses of Congress and probably soon the Supreme Court. Even Minnesota now has a Republican Senator and the land of 10,000 lakes almost became a battleground in this election. I lived in Minnesota in 1984. Nobody would have believed it back then.

Maybe some of the purported 1984 advice wasn’t so bad.

jack —

I think the point isn’t so much that the Dems don’t need to get their shit together as much as that the world isn’t coming to an end.

The point is that just because a political party loses a particular state in one or two elections doesn’t mean that people in that state have rejected them.

I could have made a similar argument about the 1996 election, the last one in which an incumbent ran. Bill Clinton won 379 EC votes, but you would have had to be a fool to think that the Democratic Party somehow “owned” those parts of the country. Even stronger, Goldwater and McGovern both were both soundly whupped (far, far worse than Kerry), and their parties took all of four years to bounce back.

I find it amusing who it is safe for the GOP to talk about the popular vote now. In 2000, I seem to recall a few (million) people saying that it didn’t mean anything because it isn’t how we choose the president, and the candidates aren’t even trying to win it. Kerry could have won a lot more votes by advertising in NY or LA. Does this argument sound familiar?

Eric Boehlert made an interesting point a good point in Salon the touted Bush “mandate”:

In the past 80 years, only three times have presidents been elected with fewer than 300 electoral votes. Bush accounts for two of the three anomalies; in 2000 he won 271 electoral votes, and in 2004 he captured 286. (Carter is the third example, with 297.)

Alejo is right. I’m not saying that the Democrats should just kick back and try again next time. What I’m arguing against is the idea that the GOP now has a virtual hold on the White House because there aren’t enough votes in the “blue states”.

By the way, Jack, your point about Minnesota really fits my argument, because it backs up the idea that the “color” of a state is a transient condition.

I think Democrats will reform and will be back.
What I find interesting is the disbelief that they actually lost this time. Some of the Bush haters couldn’t really understand that most people did not hate Bush. Some Clinton haters fell into a similar trap a couple of years ago.

By the way, I made a mistake about Minnesota. Now I recall that in 1984 Rudy Boschwitz was a Republican senator from Minnesota in those days.

Some of the Bush haters couldn’t really understand that most people did not hate Bush.

Yes, there was definitely a segment that thought that anyone with a pulse should be able to defeat the “unelected idiot”. Personally, I think Bush is a lousy president, but I have always been aware of the fact that he has about half the country on his side. Which means that a Kerry win would have been a real coup.

Some of you might find this amusing…
My 19 year old son voted for the first time in this election. In general, he’s not terribly interested in politics, but he did go out & cast his vote for Kerry. Anyway, last night after dinner I started boo-hooing about the election again, and my son exploded. “Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States, and Kerry couldn’t beat him. Kerry SUCKED!”

For once, I was speechless. Out of the mouths of babes…

I have several problems with John Kerry/DNC. Why didn’t they have information inwhich to use against Bush and CO. For example, Laura Welch Bush was involved in accident inwhich a young boy die. GWB and his father and grandfather were involved in Germany Nazi along with Arnold and Carl Rove. This is information that could have been used again the bush team, just like the lies and distoration used against John kerry records while in Vietman. I don’t under stand why something like this wasn’t used. Information regarding laura welch bush, Snopes.com type in Laura Welch. Information regarding Bush family relationship with Nazi crimesoftheright.com (htm)

It is becauase the Dems have a thing called “integrty”. maybe they did not want to be a part of the lies and deception, as well as the murky history!

Well, they have SOME integrity. And it’s also very bad form to criticize the sitting president. The Dems certainly could have brought all that up in the 2000 election had they chosen to.

If smearing is the only way to win, is it worth winning? I don’t know anymore….

Clark:

The reason the Democrats did not bring up the Laura Welch car accident and the 1930’s era Nazi allegations is because they are not IDIOTS.

But, if you should decide to run for Democratic National Committee chairman, I will campaign hard for you. Anyone who can assure me that those two issues will be at the forefront of the Democratic agenda will surely get my vote. Not even Terry McAuliffe had the stones to bring them up.

jbod —

I don’t know the details of those allegations, but there are plenty of other things Bush could have been smeared with and wasn’t: drug use, DUI, Bush family ties to the bin Ladens…. Why do you think the Dems never used any of that?

For example, Laura Welch Bush was involved in accident inwhich a young boy die. GWB and his father and grandfather were involved in Germany Nazi along with Arnold and Carl Rove.

Um, yeah, car accident. And I thought she was such a good driver…

Considering what a smashing success Kerry’s (probably well-intended) comment about Mary Cheney was, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

rdearclark

The Dems didn’t use these things because they know they don’t make any sense. All human being make mistakes and it is easy to string together enough facts to make anyone look bad. Only nut cases would actually vote on such things.

Jack —

Are you suggesting that some folks who voted for Bush were nutcases? Because I guarantee you there were voters who were swayed by SBVfT.

I really liked Mondale, and I still like to listen to his take on things. I saw him with Al Franken on the day of the vice presidential debate.

Alejo:

The Dems DID use the drug use and DUI incident—not so much this election that I saw, but certainly in the last election. Perhaps they saw that it didn’t work, so they took a different tack.

They DID talk about the bin Laden connection, though mostly in terms of Bush allegedly allowing the bin Laden family special privilege in leaving the US after 9-11. However, when Richard Clarke told the world that it was his decision, and his alone, to recommend the bin Laden family be allowed to leave, I suspect the Dems decided to move along.

The Dems used everything in their arsenal, and it simply was not enough. I don’t feel they ran a very cohesive campaign, and Kerry never connected with enough people. He got branded as a flip-flopper (true to some degree) and never changed that. Look at what Democrats are saying about the clarity of their campaign now that its over, and you can see that clarity was a big problem.

But to try to dredge up a connection from over a half century ago, or to demonize a good woman like Laura Bush for an accident for which she has shown true remorse??? As I said, the Democrats are not that stupid.

We mostly leave the character assassination to the GOP. I mean, who can forget the GOP allegations that Clinton killed 47 hookers to cover up Whitewater, or that Hillary killed Vince Foster to cover up Whitewater.

Kerry stuck with an issues campaign, while Bush went with a character-smear campaign. We tend to be more idealistic, where our opponents like to win at any cost.

Alejo, your instincts are good. What comes around, goes around - karma, and all that. Don’t sell your soul. :)

AP:

Just in this post, the “October Surprise” of 2000 was mentioned, in which someone spread the news about a Bush DUI many years in the past.

Now you may hope to believe that Democrats were not involved in that, but that would be a bit naive.

When Teddy Kennedy proclaimed that the Iraq war was conjured up in Crawford Texas, and was based on lies, he was taking shots at Bush’s character.
That you might agree with Teddy’s assertions makes it no less of a character assassination.

It is simply sour grapes to attempt to vault to the moral high ground upon losing, knowing full well that your own party engages in the political gamesmanship as much as any other party. That you are unable to see this gamesmanship shows a certain partisanship that moves past objectivity.

Both parties play for keeps. In the 90’s, the Democrats did it well enough to win the Whitehouse. You can recall Carville impugning Paula Jones with his trailer trash comment. You can see Kenneth Starr being trashed, Newt Gingrich being vilified, we now see George Bush’s character and honesty being thrown about. In this post, we have someone from the “left” suggesting the use of a car accident to impugn the good name of a good woman.

The Republicans have done it well also, and branded Kerry with many things. Does that make those things true or untrue? Depends on who you talk to, but it still is character assassination.

If Democrats continue to live in the fantasy world where they are the noble honorable knights and the Republicans the evil nasty dragons, they will continue to lose elections. If they face reality and openl search for their flaws, they may find the clues to moving forward as a party once again.

jbod —

I think maybe you misunderstand me. I wouldn’t suggest ever that Laura Bush’s accident be used against the Bushes, nor do I think that the Democratic Party is shiny white. I will say, however, that I never saw anything on television about Bush’s cocaine use or his DUI conviction. If it was there it certainly got less attention from the so-called liberal media than Kerry’s war protest did.

I also dislike drawing shadings of morality (as I think you do too) but I have to say that from what I have seen the Republican party is more willing to sink to depths unfathomable. What about the Vietnam vet double-amputee who was running for office and the Republicans impugned his patriotism? (Sorry, I can’t remember his name.) I mean, that is lower than low, even for politicians.

Alejo, don’t forget about Bush’s burglery and drunk & disorderly arrests, too. All of which Kerry could have used, but didn’t. The Vet you’re trying to remember is Max Cleland.

And, pointing out Bush’s mistakes and misleading statements is not character assassination.

BTW, Arianna Huffington has an interesting take on the red state/blue state thing:

And as for Republicans ruling rural America, exit polls found that Bush was up 13 percent in big cities, while Kerry was down 11 percent from Al Gore’s totals. On the other hand, in towns with populations between 10,000 and 50,000, Bush went down 9 percent, while Kerry gained 10 percent over Gore.

Interesting.

AP —

Burglary? Was he convicted? That’s freakin’ amazing to me, that Bush could have done all these shady, selfish, stupid things, and everybody talks about what a strong moral character he has. Give me a break. The more I hear and read about W the more certain I am that he is exactly what he looks like.

The cool thing about being a born-again Christian is that everybody loves a reformed sinner. :)

AP —

Not quite EVERYbody. —Well, maybe I would if I really thought he was reformed.