It occurs to me that, considering John Kerry's intention to neglect terrorism, institute the Greater Society in the European mold, raise taxes again and again, appoint flaming leftist nutbars to the Supreme Court and generally f*ck up in detail, that his election would be the death of the Democrat party for the foreseeable future. That might be worth working for.
Or at least a potential silver lining.
The only way I'd vote for Kerry is if he were to promose to pass legislation to outlaw the phrase "fo shizzle".
Posted by: DesiJacknut at October 15, 2004 08:58 AMThe death of the Democrat party? That's not something to be hoped for. Lemme 'splain.
No goal-oriented organizations that have power give up that power voluntarily when they achieve their goals. Rather, they change their goal to a new one, and often are guilty of overreach when they do.
Example: Mothers Against Drunk Driving was originally formed to raise consciousness about the problem of drunk driving, and demand higher punishments for people who drive drunk (at the time, punishments were slight).
They succeeded. Of course drunk driving didn't DISAPPEAR, that's impossible, but they got the punishments they wanted, and they got their word spread far and wide.
And with their victory, they are morphing into a temperance organization. A notable case they got involved in was a beer party thrown for minors where a adult took their keys away before they could drink. Since drunk driving is therefore in no way involved, you'd think MADD might approve, or even be neutral. You'd be wrong.
Democrats are currently suffering from the same syndrome. 'Liberal' used to mean sufferage for all adults, against bigotry, and toleration for the ideas and behavior of others.
They won. And they went beyond those noble goals, which we all take for granted now, into race-based payoffs, intolerance of the 'wrong' behavior in minorities (think Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice), and sufferage only insofar as it elects them (else, the lawyers come out).
A weakened Democrat party would enable the Republicans to overreach, and bring their authoritarian mean streak to the fore. This will not happen instantly.
This is why the Democrats must be crushed NOW, in the election immediately following their last crushing defeat, so that their overreaching, power-drunk, girlie-man leadership crumbles away to be replaced hopefully with something that would resemble a valid choice to a non-yellow-dog-democrat.
The party that could consider Al Sharpton more seriously as a presidential canidate than Joe Lieberman, and instead dares to send a near-traitor, anti-every-victory-we've-ever-had senator who has coasted for 20 years without any notable achievements, is not a party that is serious.
Save the republican party by preserving the Democrat party (to keep em' honest). Save the Democrat party by forcing them to be serious contenders.
Don't just defeat Kerry. CRUSH HIM.
Posted by: Ryan Waxx at October 15, 2004 02:08 PMEither way, the opposition party changes. Whether as the result of a vacuum (the Whigs died and the Republicans formed) or the result of one-too-many crushing losses (not expected this time), a change is a change.
This time, though, I don't expect a Kerry loss to change much. The 2002 trashing just made them more stubborn. I expect they have a ways to go before they turn to the Zell Millers and the Liebermans. Hillary is next, it seems.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 15, 2004 02:20 PM