Democrats Know Nothing
Over the weekend, the Chairman of the Democratic Party was on "Meet the Press" where he was gently and politely asked, by the liberal host, about how it is that the Democrats have no positions at a critical and pivotal time in human history? The Chairman acknowledged that it was quite true about not having any positions yet, but he added that they were working on it and when they came up with something it would be based on honesty. When gently pressed about whether they would let us know their honest positions this year, the Chairman replied, "in 2006." The liberal host quietly, quickly, and politely moved on to the next question.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
This pretty well captures the intellectual spirit of the Democratic Party circa 2005. Here's party chairman Howard Dean, talking with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" Sunday:
Russert: What is the Democratic position on Iraq? Should we withdraw troops now? What do the Democrats stand for?
Dean: Tim, first of all, we don't control the House, the Senate or the White House. We have plenty of time to show Americans what our agenda is and we will long before the '06 elections.
Russert: But there's no Democratic plan on Social Security. There's no Democratic plan on the deficit problem. There's no specifics. They say, "Well, we want a strong Social Security. We want to reduce the deficit. We want health care for everyone," but there's no plan how to pay for it.
Dean: Right now it's not our job to give out specifics.
Really, who needs specifics? After all, other than in 2002, 2003 and 2004, Democrats have done very well running on a platform of "Bush is a poopyhead." Why just last week they held onto the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia! You can't argue with that kind of success.
There is one little problem, as blogger Paul Geary points out:
Though it may be true that the Democrats are more cohesive now than they have been in some time, they're cohesive about only one thing: hatred of George Bush. That's less sustainable than the Christian-libertarian coalition, obviously because George Bush will, for better or worse, be removed from the equation soon. And if the Democrats believe their own rhetoric--that Bush is the worst possible president--it stands to reason that the next Republican president (McCain, Giuliani, Hegel, Romney, etc.) will be more palatable to more people.
Of course, Republicans who loathed Bill Clinton had more political success once he had passed from the scene. If the Dems are lucky, their hatred will fade, and rationality will kick in, in time for the 2008 election. Some losses in 2006 would probably be helpful toward that end.
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/18 @ 12:31 AM — (Reply)