Many of you appear to agree with the analysis I presented and my guess that the Democrats probably will not listen to it. I seem to have "shocked" some while others suggested alternative factors need to be considered if the Dems are ever to rise again.
Although I consider myself a moderate Democrat or recovering Republican, (some have tagged me a flaming liberal), I agree with you in spades. If the Democratic want this country to continue down its present slippery slope to a total theocracy/plutocracy nation, nominate Hillary. Surely, there is another FDR, Harry Truman or LBJ out there somewhere. Where are you? Your country needs you desperately.
P.S. For some unknown reason, Hillary scares me.
She hasn't even announced a run and you're already criticizing her performance. Nice work.
You are absolutely right on the mark.
If the leaders of the Democratic Party had brains — and guts (this obviously leaves Howie "Screamer" Dean out of the picture) they would choose someone like a Zell Miller (whom they all but have driven out of their party) or a Joe Lieberman. Someone in the Scoop Jackson-Daniel Patrick Moynihan mode. But they won't.
The Howies, the Nancy Pelosis, the hypocrites like Barb Boxer, the racists like Cindy McKinney and Bobby Byrd, they just don't want neo-cons around (whether they are Jewish or NOT). And neither do Jimmy, Jesse, Kerry, Bill and Hill. Their worldview, despite, as you pointed out, Hill's lurch to the center — a laugh, by the way, won't wash with the majority of us. Especially when they have the America-haters like Soros, Mikey Moore, Cindy Sheehan (certainly NOT the Mother of the 5 Sullivans here), and MoveOn.Org pulling the purse and puppet strings.
As for Hil, as a single heterosexual male, I for one have not forgotten the cuckolded fool woman who put up with her hubby's sexual peccadilloes and blatant infidelity simply because the arrogant, full-of-herself (except at home) lassie wanted her hands on the power supply. If she couldn't control her own household, I shudder to think what this weakling would do with her manicured fingers on the nuclear button.
A Jeanne Kirkpatrick would have made an outstanding President, and by the way, a better Secretary of State than the bumbling Ms. Albright. But hey, the Dems under Wee Jimmeee drove her out too.
You did an excellent job of reviewing the problems that Democrats have. This column using the same data could have been written by Michael Barone. Please accept as a compliment because that's how it's meant.
Maybe it isn't you. I could be mellowing. The other possibility is that everyone seems reasonable because I've been battling other conservatives with such intensity during the current mini revolt on the right. Minis can be such pests.
Dick Meyer's article "It Ain't Hillary, Stupid" shocked me because it was so far off base. Politics is cyclical and the 2006 and 2008 elections aren't going to be fought on the same issues as the 2004 campaign. The Democrats' inability to win after Clinton was due mainly to the changing political climate. The just past Republican upsurge was fueled by concerns about security in a post-9/11 world. Now that the Bush administration is falling apart (40 percent approval ratings), the American people are moving toward a Democratic Congress.
I think we'll see the Democratic version of the 1994 revolution here in 2006. Meyer's so-called "issues" of snobbery and lack of a voice in religion were not and are not the problems with the Democratic Party. The problem before was security and the issues now will become Republican ineptness in dealing with Iraq and Katrina and Republican corruption. The Democrats are on their way up. I'm sure in another ten or twelve years the Republicans will be back to where they are today. Public perceptions are fickle and apt to change.
Do you really feel that John McCain is a moderate? It seems to me his record is very conservative. The fact that he is a maverick vis-à-vis campaign finance reform and perhaps torture is another matter. The Northeast Republicans may qualify as moderate (not Giuliani I would say though he's closer than McCain) but otherwise I would have thought that there are more moderate candidates in the Democratic Party. Not faux moderates like Hilary Clinton but real fiscally conservative, socially liberal to moderate types. Isn't this really what Al Gore was (pro death penalty, balanced budgets, clean up waste, etc.)? And he won.
In presidential politics here in the USA, labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are secondary. The issues themselves are secondary, and they always have been. It's only after the electorate decides the candidates are equal in the "strong leadership" attribute that they even get to the point where they'll seriously evaluate their stands on the various issues.
The 2004 election proved this hurdle cannot be ignored. Based on the candidates' stated positions on a range of issues that seemed important to the electorate, when we compare these to the positions of the average voter, John Kerry really should have held George W. Bush to around forty-five percent. But in fact the outcome was almost the opposite of this.
I have no doubt that people in other countries see this kind of thing and think we're irrational. Who votes against their own interests and opinions? But to the American voter, any hint of doubt or waffling, even the vaguest whiff of philosophical musing, on the part of a presidential candidate seems a very bad thing. To run for president in this country, you've got to seem like you haven't changed your mind about anything important for at least the last twenty years. That's how we end up with a president who's not just an obstinate and stubborn fellow, he actually seems to be proud of it. And why not? That's exactly what got him elected.
Steven G. Randolph
If you still want to send in an e-mail, you'll have to read a real column to find the address.