Friday, August 26, 2005


I concluded long ago there was nothing accidental about the Democratic party's talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Given the opportunity they will accomplish the same feat during the next mid-term elections, which could indeed be a msot remarkable achievement.

They do this though by taking the most absurdly stupid positions on such matters as the death penalty, which they are against, and gun control, which they are in favor of. There is in fact a long list of positions they have taken which has cost them election after election. So why do they take them? In a word, because the base of their party, their most dependable activist supporters, demand they do so. And so do the activist groups from whom they derive their greatest amount of financial support.

These groups, in fact, don't care if they lose, in fact, they seem to prefer defear. This is not at all a contradiction, in fact, it makes perfect sense, when you consider that they depend onthe anxiety and despair oftheir contributors tokeep those dollars coming in, andthus to insure their own high salaries and bonuses.

A cynical outlook on my part? Not really. Consider a good many of their tactics. Flag burning, for example. All this accompishes is it inlames the majority ofthe American people against whatever cause is being represented by this reprehensible act. Yet, Democrats are constantly put in the untenable position by their far left supporters of viewing this as a form ofprotected speech. Thus, they oppose any efforts at a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning, and thus inflame the average voters agaisnt the Party as mucvh as the activists.

And when you point out this folly to them, they explain it away as a means of exhibiting their anger at the nations policies and their frustrations with same. It's not about winning people over to your side, they claim. I try to remind them that we do still live in a democracy, and that success is dependant on winning the majority of the voting population to your side-all to no avail.

In the meantime, them and otehr similarly minded activists end up costing the Democratic Party an uncountable number of elections when you add all the local and state races to the national ones. But they just don't get it. But, like I said, the activist group leaders get it, and are laughing as they get it and take it al the way to their non-profit banking establishments.

Of course, the Democratic party is, indeed, a liberal party, and I do not propose that it be otherwise. On workers rights, the environment, religous freedoms, gay rights, womens right and reproductive freedoms, civil rights for minorities, health care reform, prison reform, honest to goodness realistic education reform, strenthening and protecting Social Security and Medicare, etc. there is a long litiany of liberal and progressive issues the party could-if they would not allow themselves to be "Bushwhacked"-gather support by formulating common sense policies and, if necessary, yes, compromises.

I hope this time the party has enough sense to reign in the more destructive forces that have dragged them down for so long. If necessary, I would not be adverse to giving them a hearty recommendation to the Green Party, or, in many cases it might even be more appropriate to send them screaming to the Sociaist Workers Party. It's one thing to have to choose between the lesser of two evils. It's quite another thing to have to choose between two walking disasters.