Popular Iraqi war vet, Paul Hackett, has decided not to run for the U.S. Senate from Ohio. It seems a lot of the bigwigs, specifically Senators Reid and Schumer, of the party didn't feel he had as much of a chance as one of their own.
Y'know, if those idiots were doing a better job at what they're supposed to be doing, their opinion about who is or isn't the best candidate might be more important to me. Even the Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, was not freely chosen by her district. Sala Burton, widow of Phil Burton, supposedly annointed Nancy on her death bed. Their explanation to the Gay and Lesbian voters of that district was that the country wasn't ready for a Gay Congressman. You children be good, we were told, and we'll take care of you.
They've been doing such a good job, too.
So here is a president who is so incompetent it is scandalous. He is setting economic policies that serious economists agree is harmful to the U.S. economy's long-term health. See, for example, this Brookings Institute report. Add to this Abramoff, DeLay, bad news from Iraq, Libby, and whatever other sleaze you want to throw in, you would think this is low hanging fruit. Find a reasonably appealing, competent and energized face to draw people in, and the democrats are back in the White House. They wouldn't ignore the millions of people who are fed up and want change, only to put forward a party hack who only knows how to talk to his or her base. Not after Bill Clinton showed them a way to successfully build support across diverse swathes of the electorate... WOULD THEY???
Oh yeah, they would. And it breaks my heart, but I think they will. I'm watching Mark Warner with a trace of hope, but I get a feeling the same thing will happen to him that happened to Hackett.
Okay, I'll shut up now, but before I go, below is a thought from The Economist a few months back on how likely the Dems are to screw things up. I'll email you the article. Sorry if I'm getting long-winded, but you tapped into something I can get into a bit of a stew about.
Second, even if a centrist Democrat succeeds in winning the party nomination in 2008, he or she will have a huge mountain to climb. In “The Politics of Polarisation”, a new paper published by the Third Way group, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck, two centrist stalwarts, lay out the topography. The public is profoundly sceptical of the Democrats on both “values” (only 29% of Americans regard the party as friendly towards religion) and defence (it is no accident that the Democrats have won the popular vote only in recent elections—1992, 1996 and 2000—when national security was all but absent from the debate). The party has also lost ground with two groups of swing voters: married women favoured them by four points in 1996, but backed Mr Bush by 12 points in 2004; a 16-point lead among Catholics became a five-point loss in 2004.
The 1990s showed that left-of-centre parties can climb the highest mountains provided they start early and stick to the right path. Mr Clinton made his political reputation as a reforming governor who was willing to think afresh about everything from education to free trade. No sooner was Mr Blair elected leader of the Labour Party in 1994 than he started tearing up left-wing shibboleths about public ownership and rebranding the party as “New Labour”. So far the Democratic Party has been so paralysed by its internal contradictions that it has wasted its years in opposition. Perhaps it will start laying out a blueprint for government soon. But time is short.
Posted by: Peter | February 14, 2006 at 05:57 PM