posted on February 21, 2005 09:22:52 AM new
February 17, 2005
The Party of Convictions...Sort Of
Matthew Holmes
Apparently, some Americans are confused by the political tactic of promoting an anti-war, anti-religion, liberal to "fix" a party that was dominated in the last election by a country of Christians that love their military and support the War on Terror.
But it makes perfect sense to liberal Democrats.
How else do you explain the elevation (is being DNC Chairman a reward or a punishment?) of Howard "The Scream Machine" Dean to the chairmanship of the Democratic Party?
On the surface, the Dean coronation looks a lot like political suicide. (Picture the Democratic Party as an Oldsmobile being driven across a Chappaquiddick bridge with Howard Dean reprising the role of the inebriated Ted Kennedy.)
In order to put Dean in context, think about this--The Democrats ran John Kerry for President because he was "more electable" than Doctor Dean.
Kerry, a man who gained his political notoriety by consorting with communists in Vietnam and a military wannabee who fabricated stories of heroism, injury, and a top secret 1968 Christmas vacation to Cambodia under President Nixon to gain attention.
Of course, the problem with all of that was that there were no missions into Cambodia and nothing other than Kerry's delusions to support it. I'm still waiting for "National Lampoon's Cambodian Christmas Vacation," starring Chevy Chase as John Kerry. There is also the tiny little problem that Nixon was not President in 1968. Details, details!
To recap, the Democratic Party nominated an anti-war protester who accused his fellow soldiers of war atrocities (raping, cutting off ears, etc ., who has a spot in the Vietcong Communist Hall of Fame, and has a more liberal track record than Ted Kennedy (The Father of Liberalism), because he was MORE electable than Doctor Dean!
Granted, Dean is no prude when it comes to bashing red state America. It was the good doctor who led the anti-war, Bush bash against the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
It was Dean who claimed President Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time, said last week that he "hated Republicans and everything they stand for," and consistently makes statements so foolish only Michael Moore finds them plausible enough to repeat.
By "everything they stand for," I take it Dean means, "what got President Bush re-elected by 4 million votes."
Now, thanks to "everything they stand for," Congress is getting so full of Republicans that the GOP is thinking of holding Republican Class Reunions there.
As always, there is a nuanced method to their madness. The Democrats believe they simply need to talk differently about the issues they got slaughtered on in the last election: faith, moral values, gay marriage, guns, and national defense.
According to Harold Ickes, the deputy chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, "We're on the right side of those issues, but they have hurt us with a lot of people in too many jurisdictions. We have to learn how to talk about those without ceding our principles."
The last sentence is the giveaway. "We have to learn how to talk about those without ceding our principles."
Translation: "There's got to be a way to fool these idiots (especially in the South) into thinking we believe in God, support their right to keep and bear arms, are reasonable on abortion, and not a bunch of peacenik wimps."
The only problem, of course, is that liberals are atheistic, secularist, anti-gun, French-looking sissies, who don't believe in killing anything unless it has not yet been born.
Liberals are banking their future success on tricky word play and patronizing red-state America in order to weasel their way back into power in "flyover country."
If it didn't work for John Kerry--who happily took both sides of every issue in the 2004 presidential election--what makes them think a leftist radical with Foot-in-Mouth disease like Howard Dean can pull it off?
Not to worry, liberals say.
Bruce Reed, president of the Democratic Leadership Council, said: "The job of party chair is different from party nominee. The party chair needs to be an ardent partisan. You can't send a vegetarian to do a red-meat job."
Apparently, Reed did not do well on the analogy portion of the SAT.
Sending Howard Dean to convert Southern conservatives is like sending liberal Senator and KKK Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd to teach a class on Black History Month, or asking Ted Kennedy to deliver the keynote speech for the American Sobriety Council.
Anyway, if liberals wanted a real partisan, why not tap somebody with international influence, like Fidel Castro or Kim Jong-Il?
It seems even Dean himself is willing to overlook the obvious, saying, "That's frankly why George Bush was successful, because he gave the 'appearance' that he had some deep-seated convictions. If you want to excite people in politics...you've got to be a party of convictions."
Or in Dean's case, a party with the "appearance" of convictions.
Matthew Holmes is a North Carolina based columnist for Wildfire Politics. His articles have been featured in the North Carolina Conservative, World Net Daily.Com, News Max.Com, Opinion Editorials.Com, and other media outlets. He can be reached at [email protected] or http://www.wildfirepolitics.com
posted on February 21, 2005 10:47:38 AM new
You gotta laugh at 'the party of convictions'....because their political party's convictions are formed by the latest polls.
kerry was a great example of this..most of his 'convictions' were in taking all sides of the issues...cover all bases, from all sides. The man couldn't even hold true to his own faiths convictions.
Also read that some dems are warning other dems to not speak too religiously about faith issues....cause they might be looked upon as using it only for political gain. Might? lololol
Read a recent democratic poll that showed the majority [somewhere around 60-65%] of the dem party doesn't WANT to see the party go further left....and that's probably why h. clinton is moving more towards the center...about religion, abortion, the military...cause SHE gets it. But so much for her previous 'ultra-liberal party convictions'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 21, 2005 11:31:17 AM new
Libra - get over it already. As head of the DNC Dean does not run for anything or set platform. His job is to spearhead campaign organization and fund raising. Quite frankly I think you would have a hard time saying either were a problem for him in the past. the things that he has stated are needed changes are completely logical and I belive that if the same things were being said by Terry McAuliff you would be nodding your head in complete agreement.
I do find it funny right now that conservatives have somehow managed to claim god as their own and that any Democrat that professes a belief in him is somehow now labeled as a pander liar. Do you have any idea how pathetically petty and desperate that sounds?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 21, 2005 11:38:24 AM new
fenix I just posted the article. I wanted the posters that were posting about Bush and his drugs to know that Kerry and Edwards also used Marijuana. Take what you want from that article. I don't give two hoots about the DNC and who they elected all I know is I don't belong to them so I didn't vote.
posted on February 21, 2005 11:46:57 AM new
The head of the RNC
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 21, 2005 11:51:18 AM new
BTW - Where in the article is the drug references that you state you were trying to point out and if all you were doing is "posting an article" why bold certain areas... unless of course you wanted to clearly point out just how childish and immature the writer can be?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 21, 2005 11:58:41 AM new
You know fenix, in my opinion, I think its all wrong for the democrats to be moving to middle of center (unless of course that is where they truly are) but I have been thinking they should pander more to their base and get those people inspired in politics. Abortion rights, privacy advocats, homosexuals, the poor and have nots. Why not really rally their goose with conviction of those issues?
posted on February 21, 2005 01:42:22 PM newfenix I just posted the article. I wanted the posters that were posting about Bush and his drugs to know that Kerry and Edwards also used Marijuana.
Good grief Libra, are you inebriated? Did you read any of the words in the article you posted??? What on earth does that article have to do with Kerry and Edwards using Marijuana?
Please explain your statement above. I don't get it.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on February 21, 2005 02:32:40 PM new
As I was feeding my grandchild, as I babysit for 8 hours a day 5 days a week I realized that I was refurring to the one I posted in the other thread. This thread was to show the posters on the left what a traitor John Kerry was. Just read the bold and you will seen. Sorry I did that but of course the people on left only read what they want and probably just skimmed over the traitor part. Of course the people on the left never make mistakes.
Well fenix I guess you don't read these boards very much because some the posters on the left in here do not believe in god and they seem to say it quite often. How do you figure the writer was childish. He is stating his opinion which is probably the opinion of many. You didn't have to tell me who that person was because as I said I do not belong to the RNC and I really don't care who is the head of it. Just another name floating in space to me.
Profe I beg your pardon and I feel your statement about me was uncalled for. I haven't had hard liquor in over 35 years.
Something that some posters in here can't say. Did you get anything out of what I posted? Probably not because of your selective reading. Now go and correct your papers....
posted on February 21, 2005 03:32:05 PM new
::Well fenix I guess you don't read these boards very much because some the posters on the left in here do not believe in god and they seem to say it quite often.::
Libra - if you are unable to see the difference between 3 athiests and the entire democratic party I don't know what to tell you. 92% of Americans believe in God. I hate to break the news but far more than 8% of the population are Democrats
:: How do you figure the writer was childish. He is stating his opinion which is probably the opinion of many.::
It may be is opinion and I have no doubt that others may aggree but there is no way that you are going to convince me that "The only problem, of course, is that liberals are atheistic, secularist, anti-gun, French-looking sissies, who don't believe in killing anything unless it has not yet been born." is an example of a mature individual.
::You didn't have to tell me who that person was because as I said I do not belong to the RNC and I really don't care who is the head of it.::
Well then perhaps you should not have asked who he was.
Libra63 posted on February 21, 2005 11:42:47 AM
Who is Terry McAuliff don't know the gentleman....
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Feb 21, 2005 03:32 PM ]
posted on February 21, 2005 04:37:12 PM new
fenix said:
I do find it funny right now that conservatives have somehow managed to claim god as their own and that any Democrat that professes a belief in him is somehow now labeled as a pander liar.
Noone is claiming God as their own. But many here put religion and God down on a constant basis - and are always slamming the 'religious right'.
Do you have any idea how pathetically petty and desperate that sounds?
Since I don't believe that's what has been said...no, it's not petty or desperate at all.
What's pathetically petty and VERY desperate behavior is to watch the democratic party LEADERS fall all over themselves to 'convince' American's they have the same moral positions/values on the issues and that they too are just soooo religious. WHY all of a sudden?
'Cause they realized how many people of faith voted for this President...especially those that in the past had voted for the democratic party.
Take dean for one example.....he mentioned himself he was ONLY going to speak about religion when he was campagning in the South. Wonder why? Imo, to get the religious vote....just as kerry was 'working' the black votes in their churches.
And hillary now coming out with all her 'new found' further-to-the-center belief systems.....she knows what moral issues seperated this nation during this past election....and she's changing her liberal platform to get more votes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 21, 2005 04:43 PM ]
posted on February 21, 2005 04:42:37 PM new
The party of convictions all-right:
http://www.gopcaughtontape.com/
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
The man couldn't even hold true to his own faiths convictions.
