![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
This Can't Go On
Posted by Stephen Green · 12 November 2003
Bill Safire reports that the Clintons fear that Howard Dean could steal their party from them: Clintonites were first to take the Dean threat seriously. As reported gleefully in this space (full disclosure: I'm rooting for Dean's candidacy in hopes of the debacle), the Clinton crowd surrounded ex-Gen. Wesley Clark with Clinton managers, spinmeisters, pollsters and fund-raisers and marched him into battle against Dean. The Kennedy wing, he goes on, shares the fear: So the Kennedy Left moved in to resuscitate John Kerry's campaign. Kerry is a war hero who led Vietnam Vets Against the War and has long been a Kennedy Senate ally. Some liberals believe he expunged his sin of having voted for this year's resolution to overthrow Saddam by recently joining Kennedy in voting against paying for it. I have an honest question for Clinton and Kennedy fans: Why wouldn't you want Dean to shake up the Democratic party? Sure, change hurts -- but any more of the status quo and there won't be a party in 10 years. Already, the South is lost, the Rocky Mountain west and rural midwest are, too, and you're decreasingly competitive in the industrial midwest. Do you really want to be a party of the West Coast and bits of the northeast? So shake things up before the party is over. Comments
--Do you really want to be a party of the West Coast and bits of the northeast?-- They will never give up their ivory towers. And if Bush gets 35-40-odd states, they still won't get it. Because after all, it IS about them, the enlightened few. November ??, 2004 will be a very interesting morning. Posted by: Sandy P. at November 12, 2003 12:17 AMOh, and if W does win by a decent enough margin to be legit, just sit back w/popcorn and watch the not only the US, but Old Europe spaz.(sp) Posted by: Sandy P. at November 12, 2003 12:30 AMAt the risk of being repetitive, the Clinton/DNC controlled Democrat party (I guess you can throw the Kennedy branch in there too now) doesn't want any of the candidates to win in the primaries. It was planned that way so there'd be an opening for Hillary to be drafted at the convention if Bush looked beatable, or if McCain could be flattered into running as a third party. They didn't see Dean coming and if wins enough primary votes for a first ballot win, he gets the nomination. They can't let that happen, so all of a sudden we're hearing about doing away with some of the primaries (I guess that's preferable to doing away with Dean). Too expensive. Our local liberal rag, the Daytona News-Journal, even had one of their local yahoos tell us that the Florida primary system is unfair because it was rigged by the Republican legislature to favor Republican candidates. The local lefties don't make any more sense than the national ones do. Does anyone remember that the primary system we have in place was invented so Jack Kennedy could by-pass party leaders and smoke-filled room caucuses and go directly to the rank and file Democrat voters, so he could come to the convention in 1960 with enough muscle to force his candidacy. Huntley and Brinkley were salivating and the breathless fawning over Kennedy's machinations were disgusting. It was the first time a national convention was televised and they didn't have it down pat yet, so they actually showed what was going on rather than what they wanted you to see. It was a blood bath. BTW - That's the day I became a Republican. Now the Clinton/DNC leadership wants the primary system dismantled or at least shaken up a bit because it may not turn out the way they planned. Wasn't it one of the head honchos in the EU who said that you should never have an election if you can't be sure your candidate will win. Not surprisingly their willing accomplices in the media are already getting with the program. You really have to hand it to the left, they have more tricks up their sleeve than Felix, the Cat. Posted by: erp at November 12, 2003 06:17 AMDead right there erp, look for the Dems to try and delegitimize the primary process this election cycle. They've already started, with their candidates picking and choosing which primaries they will participate in. In fact, they started in 2002 with Lautenberg replacing Toricelli at the last minute in NJ. It's sad to see but the Dems are now moving past marginalization into becoming a threat to democracy. All their actions (NJ 2002, Florida 2000) are trying to replace primaries and voters with party bosses and court decisions. Fortunately, us voters know better, and are casting out the Democrats in droves. Posted by: Mike M at November 12, 2003 06:35 AM Good question Steve, I've posted a response here. Posted by: Mike Van Winkle at November 12, 2003 06:43 AMAll too many of the intellectual godfathers within the Dem Party, I think, believe that the Party is too good for the likes of us; a position that is echoed by many in Hollywood, it seems: http://www.msnbc.com/news/990758.asp?0dm=C16QN Posted by: Dean at November 12, 2003 07:25 AMTO: Stephen Green The Democratic party, of which I was a member up until the mid-70s and I saw them going weird, needs to change from the hatefilled megalomaniac organization it is today. No doubt about it. However, power corrupts and it is no longer a matter of what is good for the nation for them. It is a matter of ego. The cult of personality stokes their locomotion. They look in their respective mirrors and ask, 'Who is the fairest of them all.' And the mirror, fearing the slings and rocks of outraged ego, tells them they are looking at it. They focus on the mirrors, i.e., each other, and will not accept outside input, because the outside input, i.e., the other mirrors in society, won't tell them that they are beautiful people. From there, we get into the 'sour grapes' business about how stupid the rest of those mirrors, i.e., US, are. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 12, 2003 08:09 AMP.S. Ignorance is when you don't know something. Stupidity is ignorance with price. Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 12, 2003 08:11 AMRe: "I have an honest question for Clinton and Kennedy fans: Why wouldn't you want Dean to shake up the Democratic party?" The fans are not the ones to ask. I'm sure Clinton and Kennedy fans would love to have Dean shake things up. The fans, however, will not call the shots, the Clintons and the Kennedys will and they don't want any shaking because the name of the game is "Power". Posted by: Tom Bowler at November 12, 2003 09:24 AM"Already, the South is lost, the Rocky Mountain west and rural midwest are, too, and you're decreasingly competitive ..." Waste of breath, they won't hear you. At this point in history, Dems are among the most self-deceived folks on the planet. They can't see past their all-consuming hatred for Bush, and their pathological need to be accepted and loved by the Europeans. If Bush wins in '04 (and I can't see what catastrophe could stop it), they are going to go through a lot of gnashing of teeth, but again, no soul-searching. Posted by: Lauraw at November 12, 2003 10:27 AMMm. I'm trying to decide if it'll be more fun to stay up and watch the election returns, or get up early to read the editorials on what went wrong. I could get so much more done if I didn't have to sleep. :-) Posted by: rosignol at November 12, 2003 01:08 PMoh no no no- you HAVE to watch the returns. That's your only hope of seeing a spontaneous reaction. Posted by: lauraw at November 12, 2003 02:03 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"I'd like to be the olive in his martini."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |