| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| They’re on to us, folks... |
| 2004-01-07 |
| The conventional wisdom is that Democrats should worry that a Howard Dean candidacy will spark an exodus of centrists to the GOP and cost the party the election. Leave. Stay. Who cares? The dems are toast in 2004 with the solid socialist base they have Forget about it. It’s wishful thinking by Republicans and just plain hooey spread around by Democrats who want to be front-runners but aren’t. We will have to see, then won’t we? The truth is that the party should worry about its progressives. These are the defections that could ensure another Bush victory. As I said; especially after this Bush eq Hitler thing, progressives are the central reason why America will remain strong and free after Nov. 2004 Yes, centrists can be, and often are, progressive. But we’re mostly talking here of folks who can describe themselves as liberal and not feel they have to make any red-faced apology for doing so. Nor should they apologize for saying they are liberal. We know where they are. And there are more of these than the Democratic Leadership Council cares to admit. Ya think? The more liberal wing of the party is where the passion - and the potential for defection or inaction - is keenest. The most vocal Democrats out there are not making impassioned pleas for establishment, e.g., centrist, candidates. It’s why Dean is an early favorite. It is also where the socialists and traitors reside. Fonda apparently gets a pass for provable acts of treason, I am not letting any more liberals off the hook. They will pay for their perfidy in 2004. They are making the case for whoever is most willing to take on Bush and his patently faux conservatism, cloaked with a veneer of compassion and false pledges of sound fiscal policy. I have yet to see any leftist make any case other than Dubya is stoopid. Where’s the case? You know, like how tax cuts are good for reducing deficits, that deficits are just dandy (except if they can be blamed on a Democrat), how an economy that sputters on jobs and fails to deliver appreciable wage gains is "booming" and how war in Iraq was about WMDs and international terrorism. Tax cuts do reduce deficits in a booming economy. This economy is on the cusp of booming and so there is no reason to think high deficits can be slashed at the beginning of a recovery. As for Iraq: for my money, GWII was as much as finishing the war, the ceasefire of which was violated so many times it literally has no meaning. Well Dubya gave it meaning and will be bringing God’s gift of freedom to a long suffering people. What in the world is wrong with that? Those inclined toward centrism will warm to Dean if he is nominated, Republican moderates among them. Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman will be their first choices perhaps, but they will vote for anyone thought to be in the top tier of candidates. Actually I think when push comes to shove these so called moderate republicans will flee like UN staff workers once they realize how far to the left Dean really is. That’s because they know Bush is anything but the moderate, centrist uniter he sold us in his 2000 campaign. They’ve seen his true colors. It’s red ink, socially conservative, partisan at any cost, internationally unilateralist and too cozily tight with corporate America. Let me get this straight: You think Bush is conservative, but in an earlier paragraph you think he isn’t. Is this what I recently read in Rantburg as delightfully named intellectual gymnastics? But listen to all this talk about Dean. He’s allegedly unelectable because he will be tagged as a "flaming" liberal, a description generally unsupported by his mostly centrist tenure in public office. It’s a tag Republicans will use on any Democratic nominee in any case. I understand that but the only reason why I would call Dean a flaming liberal is if he said something that makes sense. Until then he is a socialist. Dean is labeled as liberal mostly because of his early and vocal anti-war stance. That makes him a traitor. It’s quite possible, however, that the more liberal wing of the party will not think that even this is enough. Ya think? The danger is not that disaffected centrists will sit the election out or vote Republican. The real danger is in that small body of voters who are among the most passionate I’ve detected in this election. People like Dennis Kucinich’s boosters. Insanity does have compassion I guess Look, Kucinich is a great guy with some good ideas. He is unfairly labeled as a wacky fringe candidate. He isn’t. In his visit with The Republic Editorial Board, he did far better than a certain Texas governor who wanted to be president about three years ago. But Kucinich will not win the nomination. Well, he didn't do quite as well as Dubya. Look who’s president. The danger is that although Kucinich says he will support the ultimate nominee, his supporters might not listen. They are not numerous but, along with other left-leaners, are a big enough niche to matter in a close election. Just ask Al Gore. Close my ass. After the primary, we will hear even more talk of Bush Lite to describe the nominee. This because any Democratic candidate will have to run more to the center in a general election. By Bush Lite you must mean GHW Bush, right? That’s Bush light. Run to the center, run to the right, doesn't matter. When we start to re-post the rantings and sayings the the leftists tied to the democratic party made since 2001, I wouldn’t want to proudly say I am a liberal if I were you. This could cause Kucinich supporters and those politically aligned to either sit out this election or, worse, embolden Ralph Nader to make another failed try, all for liberal principle. It won't matter anyway. Many Democrats subscribe to these notions but are guided by one other inexorable fact: None of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, represents the purest personification of civic virtue, political wisdom and sterling resume. They know this by personal experience. This person does not exist. It’s about pragmatic alternatives. Of which Bush is the most ’sterling’ It’s not too early for Democrats to start worrying about what comes after the primaries. You’re absolutely right. You all should have started to worry about this on 12 September 2001. They shouldn’t fret about the centrists or moderates in the party taking their marbles home. They should worry about liberals or progressives insisting on having it all but instead losing it all. Losing It All for 500, Alex |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #7 Yawn. This screed is the usual product from Pimental. If it weren't for the Arizona Repulsive, this guy would be making a living writing rants for a throw-away alternative rag, to fill the spaces between the 'escort available' ads. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-1-7 8:58:06 PM |
| #6 she is a genocider and a baby killer Damn JFM, Strong. Anyone else outside CONUS think that? Just one surprises and delights. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-7 6:23:19 PM |
| #5 Sorry, but Jane Fonda's acts of treason are the smallest of her crimes. By helping to demoralize the US, by helping to comfort the Vietnamese in perseverating after their defeat during the Tet she has a major responsability in the martyrdom of the Vietnamese and Cambodian people. And she is unrepentant and happy of her actions. In my eyes she is a genocider and a baby killer. Wish there were a Nuremberg for that kind of "pacifists" and leftists whose hand drip with blood. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-1-7 3:00:42 PM |
| #4 Reality may be very painful come election day. But don't you see, election day will be ABSOLUTE PROOF of the conspiracy by the Hitler-Bush-Halliburton-Israeli-Freemasons when the returns come in. The 'republican wing' of the democratic party is being sickened by what they are hearing and seeing from the dwarves. If they don't see clark or leiberman, they'll flee in droves. The radical nuts are just too brainwashed and self-involved to be able to see what's coming. |
| Posted by: 4thInfVet 2004-1-7 2:02:51 PM |
| #3 "Those inclined toward centrism will warm to Dean if he is nominated, Republican moderates among them." What the hell? Did this guy just escape from an insane asylum or something? Whatever, he's engaging in some seriously industrial-grade wishful thinking if he believes that any significant number of Republicans would vote for Dean over Bush. "They shouldn’t fret about the centrists or moderates in the party taking their marbles home. They should worry about liberals or progressives insisting on having it all but instead losing it all." Actually, what he and every other professional Democrat should be worried sh*tless about is that a whole BUNCH of people, from every point on the spectrum, will take their marbles and go home in disgust. I sure did: after 31 years as a Democrat, I'm now a Republican. If I can't have Jack Kennedy or Scoop Jackson, I'll take George W. Bush any day of the week, thank you. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-1-7 1:29:29 PM |
| #2 Ah, these predictions of an electoral quagmire for Bush, what original thinkers they are. They must just be filling in the names of possible quagmires, into a template. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-7 11:26:24 AM |
| #1 Many on the left seem to be hanging around with, reading, watching only people that already agree with their worldview. Reality may be very painful come election day. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-7 11:12:13 AM |