There's a post on The Moderate Voice titled "Kerry Blasts GOP And Says Democratic Party Doesn't Need Much Change". It's one more post on the failure of the Democratic party to win over the hearts of a majority of Americans. In it's favor, it acknowledges the role of bad consultants in past losses. The post is interesting, but what's got me blogging about it (after a few weeks of being offline as I've immersed myself in a trying to help an actual progressive candidate win an actual congressional race) -- what's got me blogging about it is the comment thread. Here are a few excerpts:
Most voters, however, make choices based on something other than the kind of visceral hatred which is the only thing the left understands any more.
Unfortunately, the Democrats support for Roe v Wade leads to them putting the "right to privacy" so high on their priorities that our security suffers.
What the Democrats can't overcome could be called the "Roe Defect." A party that believes anyone in a mother's womb has the moral status of hamburger meat doesn't attract people with integrity.
But mainly, the Democratic party needs to support the war against terrorism, rather than undercut the government. I think that the only Democrat who could beat a Republican candidate for president would be a Democrat who can and will say that he supports the president on the war, and when elected, will continue to fight, not indict, terrorists.
The heart of a party has to be more than the killing of unborn children, special privileges for special groups, more taxes, anti-christian bias, surrender to terrorists, protecting the political class, and hatred for a sitting president. The little guy has learned that the Democratic party's high minded programs hurt the little guy.
But until the Dem's decide that this country is worth defending from our enemies, until they even acknowledge that we're at war - I'm voting straight Rep (even if I sometime have to hold my nose to do so).
To this life-long Democrat, our party has zero credibility on the paramount question of protecting the nation and defending liberal values from an ideology that wants to kill us or forcibly convert us to seventh century Islamism.
The Democrats will continue to be marginalized until moderates and sane liberals have the guts to read out of the party the discredited leftists, Michael Moore moonbats, and rabid haters that unfortunately have set the tone for the party.
The Dems today think they can be weak on the war and get elected.
Until the Dem's figure out that the GWOT is the real deal, and that Iraq is the defining battle of that war, they will continue to be thought of as completely untrustworthy in the eyes of the majority of the electorate, regardless of how poorly Bush or his successor perform.
I'm so tired of being lectured to, told to change my party, based on inaccurate information or outright disinformation dished out by the far right. So here's the comment I posted - without a lot of thought put into it. And here's my question: How do we communicate that we take terrorism seriously, since I'm quite sure we do? How do we get our views on national security out there?
My comment on the Moderate Voice post:
Wow. For a site called "The Moderate Voice" there's not much that's moderate in these comments.
Here, the Dem party is soundly thumped for not taking terrorism seriously. I fundamentally disagree that this is the case. I think instead that's it's the mantra that's been chanted so often that it's assumed to be true.
The reason Dems didn't support the invasion of Iraq is because it was a distraction from the real threat - terrorism. Of course, now Iraq really is the heart of the war on terror but it wasn't back when.
My reasons for not supporting Bush are broad, but the bottom line for me is that I don't believe he's making us safer, despite his talk. His handling of the war has been a fiasco and we can't afford that. Osama still roams the borders of Afghanistan with the blind-eye of Pakistan turned away. We've pissed off the very allies we need to fight terrorism across the globe, making it that much harder for us to protect ourselves. Homeland security has been neglected, with minimal efforts to protect our ports, our public transport systems, and our borders. We've undermined our moral authority by our treatment of detainees and given fodder to those who hate us in doing so. It's a national disgrace and I really don't understand how patriotic talk makes up for the disastrous leadership we have.
We can't fight and win if we don't make decisions based on the facts. If we need more troops, send them. Don't dismiss the military's desire for them as "one theory" as Bush did. If we need the help of allies, work with them - don't piss on them. If we need better armor for the troops, get it to them. Don't let our soldiers die because of a screwed up Pentagon procurement process. Don't cut taxes during a war time and pretend the costs of war don't affect the budget. Have the courage to put those costs in the budget and tell Americans that we need to sacrifice in the name of national security.
Don't tell me that I'm not a patriot, don't love my country, don't take national security seriously just because I don't salute a president who isn't doing a good job. Because I didn't think invading Iraq was the best way to defeat our enemy. Because I'm a Democrat.
The Dems are a minority party - an opposition party. They have ideas, proposals, solutions for a wide range of issues including fighting terrorism and protecting the homeland. You can find them online - just check out some Dem politician's web sites. No - the alleged liberal media doesn't cover Democratic ideas. They aren't considered newsworthy. But that doesn't mean they aren't there. What does get covered is Dem opposition to Republican proposals and criticism of Bush's leadership. That doesn't mean that the message in the media is the sum total of Dem thought.
Finally, I don't believe that the Dem party is on the verge of disintegration and I don't believe that the assumed ascendancy and endurance of the Pubs is a given. What people respond to is authenticity and our candidates have stupidly allowed themselves to be packaged and positioned. That's what has to end. People responded to Dean because he was authentic and he gave average citizens the opportunity to be involved. Yes, his opposition to the war got him noticed. But his authenticity got him support.
Those on the right can claim that the left has been co-opted by the fringe. But from my view, that's exactly what's happened to the right. It's getting to the point where disagreeing with the far right is an invitation to be labeled unAmerican, unpatriotic, sinful, evil, whacked. That's a shame and I hope those of you in the Pub party can reclaim it. I don't know if that will happen as long as the disdainful, wholesale denigration of the opposition continues.
Look. There are thoughtful patriots who care about the country on both sides of the aisle. And both sides have their fair share of wingnuts and moonbats. Maybe the first step in wresting the political process away from the extremists is to begin to treat each other with a modicum of respect and to listen to each other. I'll try. I hope others do to.