It is unwise to view a Democratic victory in 2008 as inevitable. In fact, it's not just unwise -- it is downright foolish.
I feel much worse about our chances in 2008 than I felt in 2004. After all, the opponent was George Bush, a proven loser.
Today, the American people are sick of Bush and Cheney personally, and they are sick of the current war. But they still want conservatism. They still believe Jesus votes Republican. They still believe that the "terrists" want to establish "the Caliphate" over America. They are desperate to vote for any TAKWING -- that is, for any Terrorist-Ass-Kicker-Who-Is-Not-George.
And they still believe that all liberals are gun-stealing, immigrant-kissing, Jesus-hating wimps who talk about "Gaia" and who want YOUR SON TO SLEEP WITH OTHER BOYS.
When I saw the question about gays in the military raised at the last Democratic debate, I thought: That's it. The race is over and we have lost.
According to a recent poll, voters care more about "values" than ever before. When you see the word "values," always translate it as "sex." Americans, particularly red state Americans, are simply too damn dumb to understand that non-sexual ethics even exist.
Cheney can use the Iraq war to fatten his Haliburton holdings: Doesn't matter. The President can start a war on a false pretext: Doesn't matter. Americans can commit torture: Doesn't matter. Jack Abramoff: Doesn't matter. Stolen money earmarked to rebuild Iraq: Doesn't matter.
Americans are intellectually incapable of comprehending such things. As the Subgeniuses say: "You know how dumb the average guy is? By definition, half the guys out there are dumber than that."
Ask any group of average Americans -- the girl behind the counter at Dairy Queen, the guy stocking the shelves at Rite-Aid -- why Jim Bakker went to jail. If they are old enough to recall Jim Bakker, they'll answer: Because he had sex with Jessica Hahn. That'll be the reply, nine times out of ten. I've conducted the test. Feel free to confirm my results.
The -- and I mean the -- only ethical issues Americans understand involve penises, vaginas, and the proper and improper uses thereof.
And we have to face the fact that, on a visceral level, nothing scares American parents more than the prospect of their little Timmy growing up to kiss little Jimmie. That is what matters to them. We have to face the fact that most Americans believe that John Kerry favored gay marriage in 2004 -- even though he didn't -- and that many people voted against him because of this perceived stand.
Who lost Congress for the G.O.P. in 2006? Mark Foley. Absent a new Foley scandal, the Republicans will gain ground in 2008.
Although I've provisionally given my support to Obama, I have to agree with a recent commenter (on another blog) who said Obama does not sound like he wants to become the next president -- he sounds like he wants to be the next Tony Robbins. Middle America wants a Daddy, not a Tony.
Hillary? The fact that Rupert Murdoch helped raise money for her tells the story: She cannot win in the general.
15 comments:
I share your pessimism and your assessment of the "American people" certainly covers a significant portion of the voting public - therein lies the problem. Too many Americans with more rational world views don't vote. They look at the candidates chosen by the big money interests for the nomination of the two parties and say "WTF is the difference?"
Certainly if the Democrats insist on nominating a wet-finger-in-the-wind, for-it-before-I-was-against-it establishment centrist (Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and probably Edwards) they are asking for trouble. A strong daddy Republican coupled with some Rovian vote suppression gimmicks like the last 2 elections and they're toast.
To win, they need an exciting and forthright, unapologetic, unabashedly liberal with real leadership qualities. As I say, I share your pessimism.
It isn't as if there aren't enough skeletons (the sexual kind) in the Republican closets, so if Americans only respond to sexual scandals, then it seems to me that Democrats and those who hope for a Democratic Party victory should put a lot of effort in airing out those closets.
How about "Lesbian daughter produces an heir to carry the Cheney name". No wonder Dick looked so happy holding Samuel David Cheney. Was there any gender selection angle involved?
Joe, you worry too much. Take an extended break from the corporate media and you'll feel much better. The media will always paint a rosy picture for the Republicans, no matter how ridiculous it is.
They cannot win. We cannot lose. The Republicans have tortured the world for six years and broken every known record for screwing things up. Wingers would be getting the crap beat out of them every day if they were recognizable on the street.
Obama would make a great president, Clinton would be heads and shoulders above bush, but sadly to say I lbelive neither one of them can get elected over the blowhard Thompson (oh he'll get the nomination easily). He is the man you are describing as the one who can say all the language that taps into the hot points that get the attention of the stupid ones.
So who is the man for the dems in '08? The only man that can win, President Gore of course. Edwards would be a great running mate but he most likely wouldn't be interested in second fiddle a second time. As far as that goes Edwards would probably do better against Thompson but still lose.
We the People elected Al Gore once and we can do it again. We just have to figure out a way to derail the rigged election technics of the rethugs.
I agree and disagree. Yes, the next president may be a Republican, or at least the possibility cannot be summarily dismissed as one might think it should. Not, however, if their candidates maintain their Iraq positions. As to HRC's chances, my take is that if Ruppert Murdoch raised money for her, that means she can win, rather than the opposite, as you say.
sofla
WHOA, NELLIE! hold up, pardner. not only are these very bleak words, they are pretty damn insulting.
first of all, even though you're right that a faction of this country suffers from some serious sexual repression (and the reaction formation that inevitably emerges therefrom), i do think you are way overstating your case.
for one thing, though it's true that those foley and swaggard scandals likely influenced voter turnout last november, there is as much evidence that it was because of the republican HYPOCRISY more than the homosexuality of the scandals themselves. those scandals fed as much into the widespread atmosphere of republican scandal in the generic as it did into the sexual fears of our more impressionable neighbors.
for another thing, the voting population is becoming increasingly infiltrated by the youth of this country, a youth that has grown up with a far more liberal acceptance of race, gender, and - yes - sexual orientation. and these kids are pretty vocal and active; never forget those lines in ohio in 04, my friend! the last person to vote in ohio that year was a college student who'd been there for over six hours, at 3 AM, if i recall correctly!
second of all, you lose sight of a number of other factors playing into these issues. from all indications, the public is pretty tired of the gay wedge (no pun intended), and the evangelicals are pretty fed up with being used by the republican party for the 'values' wedge. MANY evangelicals have abandoned the party, not for the gay issues, but for the real values issues, like ignoring the planet and engaging in rampant corruption. people are seeing the party for what it is, a thoroughly and unrepentent corrupt and ruthless greed machine.
so i disagree that the polls saying 'values' should be translated to mean 'gayphobia'; i honestly believe it means the public is completely fed up with the corruption.
take as a case in point the fact that support for the dems has actually dropped significantly since their shift on funding the iraq supplemental. the public wants action on these matters, not more of the same. THIS is the meaning of values now, and the most powerful way it will play against the dems in 08 is if this congress continues to operate as business as usual.
(the sad thing is that the public is not watching the incredibly good work the dems ARE doing, iraq funding notwithstanding. but then, how can one watch the hearings while at work?)
finally, though your take on the intelligence of the general public is amusing, it is - forgive a didactic here - not fully informed. though it is true that 'half the population's IQ' falls below the average data point, by definition, this is actually a highly misleading (though, again, amusing) way to present the case.
the fact is, by definition, 64% of the public have IQs that fall in the average RANGE. and then, on top of that, there's 13% of the public whose IQs fall even higher than the average range. which is to say that a full 87% of the population enjoys intelligence in the average range, or higher. it's only 13% who struggle with less than average IQs.
and if you think about it, really, this has to make sense. for anyone to be AVERAGE, it has to refer to MOST of the people, right? it would NOT make any sense for average to be unusual!!
now, the stats lesson aside, i want to also say that it's not just a matter of intelligence that guides decision-making; it's a matter of conscience. for cryin' out loud, i have to bet that bill kristol (and libby and kissinger....the list goes on and on) has a fairly high IQ, but neither he nor any of his comrades can lay claim to an ounce of conscience. on the other hand, i know many folks with barely average IQs who have nonetheless the good sense and good conscience and wisdom to make decisions that effect the most good for the most people involved.
i have to say yet again that i'm with ben franklin on this one: given an education and good information, most people will make the right decision most of the time.
HAVING SOME SEMBLANCE OF BELIEF IN THIS ASSERTION IS A PRIMARY REQUISITE FOR A DEMOCRACY TO WORK!!
think about it, joe; supporting a democracy would make NO sense if you actually believed that most people are just plain TOO STUPID to ever make a reasonable decision.
in fact, that happens to be the operating position of all those patronizing folks out there who believe that the masses are just too dimwitted to govern themselves and thus must be shepherded by strong leaders, like kings and the unitary executive and such.
now, i happen to know you are NOT a member of that club, not truly.
now that we have these fundamental issues in perspective, let's get down to determining the REAL culprits here so we can throw our energies in the proper and most effective direction.
wrong decisions are being made because the people are not properly educated....
well, we easily have the republican party to blame for the shift in our budget spending from education to the military. not to mention the horrifying PR campaign to scare the bejeezus out of whomever would be frightened by non-whites and non-christians in the same room with their precious kiddies. these people are NOT in the majority in this country, but what has happened has been a precipitous decline in the quality of public education because of lack of funding, etc., then it feeds on itself when even the most liberal among us - despite our best political instincts - just can't bring ourselves to send little jimmy and jane to the nasty, run-down, violent neighborhood schools. the result? the rich are well-educated, many of them however with incredible biases and narrow, limited experience, but the general public is now so hopelessly under-educated it's frightening. if they vote, they won't do so with any amount of reasoned decision-making process involved.
and, wrong decisions are being made because people are not informed....
well, joe, your entire existence as a blogger is based on the fact that the truth cannot be found in the MSM, which is corporate owned and self-serving, by definition. i needn't belabor this point; we all know it. we don't even have a press free enough to expose the facts that folks are not educated or informed! it's not free enough to expose the fact that our leaders are DELIBERATELY misinforming us, misleading us, scaring us, into STUPID decisions that serve only their interests and NEVER our own!
i agree we're in a helluva mess. but i'll be damned if i'm going to blame my good neighbors. though i don't agree with them all the time, i'm NOT going to stoop to disparaging their good sense. i'll work like crazy to see to it that they and their kids are educated and informed, but then - as a GOOD AMERICAN CITIZEN - i'll sing along with voltaire, defending to the death their right to disagree with me.
i'll close my harangue (forgive me, you know i LOVE you, but it seems a vile waste of perfectly good righteous indignation to dump it on the innocent citizen when we have SO DAMN MANY evil perps out there!) by pointing out, again, that despite all the administration and media propaganda, despite all the poor education, and despite all the fear-mongering, THE POLLS CONTINUE TO SHOW THAT THE PUBLIC IS SEEING THROUGH MOST OF IT, AND THEY/WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH.
can't help thinking of 'network' here; we're mad as hell, and i don't think this poor public is going to take it anymore.
and the dems had better sit up and take notice; if they don't realize just how SMART - and MAD - the public has become, they're going to miscalculate in 08, too.
i'd say the country is ripe for a landslide from a 3rd party, if not in 08, then in 2012 after we watch EVERYONE fail us.
The dumbing-down is not just a matter of bad schools.
When I was home-schooling my son in the 90's, as an exercise we pulled out a world history text my mother had used in the 20's, one I had used in 1960, and the one the local high school was using currently. In each generation, the amount of text had declined, the number and size of pictures had increased, and the explanatory power had decayed.
In the specific case we looked at closely -- the decay of the Roman Republic -- the 20's text went into a whole array of social and political ills over several pages, while the 90's one gave it about a paragraph of what was essentially pablum.
That's why I ended up teaching him from "The Cartoon History of the Universe." Not only was it much meatier, but he actually still remembers most of it.
oops; i detected a typo in my stats lesson:
the percentage of folks who fall in the average range (of anything, by definition) is 74%, not 64%.
the rest of the numbers are accurate.
sorry for my obsessive-compulsive bent on this point, but it's not trivial, for at least the reasons i list in my original comment.
thanks for bearing with me on it, those who could actually bear it!
democracy lover, you do not get me AT ALL. The point of my essay was that the American people remain highly conservative, even reactionary, and highly susceptible to appeals to the Id.
Your insane response is that, to win over a conservative population, Dems must field the least conservative candidate imaginable.
Are you mad?
"They look at the candidates chosen by the big money interests for the nomination of the two parties and say "WTF is the difference?""
No, they do NOT. Wake the fuck up, will ya? That may be how YOUR friends react, but when will you people finally realize that you and your pals are a tiny minority within a nation of near-fascists?
The vast majority of the people in this country do not believe that there is no difference between the parties.
Millions of people in this country think that Hillary Clinton is a socialist.
Go to the conservative web sites. Look at the t-shirts where Clinton's name is spelled with a hammer and sickle.
Or ask anyone about the effective campaign against Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Do you have any idea how many millions -- not thousands: MILLIONS of America people believed in those absurd rumors that Clinton was preparing America for a Soviet invasion in 1994? Yes, 1994: The Speznaz forces, it was said, were gathering in Mexco, just waiting for the "go" signal to come pouring over the border.
Lecturers got up in front of halls and spewed shit like this. It was on the radio. In magazines. It was everywhere.
That's what was said about a centrist like CLINTON.
He was the only Democrat to gt elected in recent decades. And he was able to get in only when Perot split the right-wing vote.
WAKE UP!
Get it through your damn heads, people: The American people are IDIOTS and they will fall for demagogic nonsense every single time.
Your comment reminds me of the crap we heard when Clinton tried to get his health plan passed. There were lots of people like you, "demoracy lover" who told us that "the people" could and and should not support the too-compromised Clinton plan because "the people" wanted something closer to true socialized medicine. And that's why lefties sneered at Clinton's every idea.
Guess what? Something closer to a true socialized medicine bill was on the ballot in California in -- I think it was 1996.
It got about 20% of the vote.
In true-blue California.
Stop pretending that you speak for "the people." You don't understand the people AT ALL. Do as I once did: Get on a greyhound bus, And take the southern route across country. Talk to people. Be honest. Do NOT wear your rose-colored glasses. Allow yourself to see your fellow citizens as the ambulatory APES that they are. Never for a second allow yourself to see them as you wish them to be.
Dr Elsewhere.
Since when voting is something rational ? First, for intelligence to work, you need to feed it with good data, otherwise, it's garbage in, garbage out. And not a lot of people can afford the "luxury" of being well informed on issues, most rely on MSM to get their info.
The people who supported the Nazi where not just stupid dummies. I know some pretty intelligent people who will follow the Republican party like lemmings because for them, it's a matter of "us (conservatives) and them (those evil liberals)". It's closer to the rationality behind the support of a football / baseball team...
And what if there's another major terrorism event before 08, something like Big Wedding part 2, how do you think it's going to influence the elections ?
Damn right, Dems better not get giddy thinking this thing is won! It will take the right candidate running an almost flawless race to beat the daddyism of the Cans. They will need the money, GOTV maxed out, and a few pictures of Fred's young wife looking like she is "slutted-up" and ready to rape middle Americas' husbands and sons to make sure we win on election day! Pants zippers and daddy loom large in elections where I live, so far south that if I walk 6 blocks south I am swimmin in the Gulf!
Geez. Where to begin??
Well, given Joe’s reaction to democracy lover, I’ll have to focus on that first and hope it covers most of the issues raised here.
Joe, if you look closely at your comment, you’ll find that you’re actually not really exposing the American psyche; you’re actually making my point about the media’s role in distorting the democratic process. The maelstrom that targeted the Clinton’s in the 90s was media manufactured and nurtured. Scaife, Murdoch, the unleashed (thanks to Reagan’s deregulation of FCC rules, especially dropping the Fairness Doctrine) Limbaugh and Savage and Hannity and O’Reilly and FauxNews.
Those factors do NOT speak about the stupidity of the average American, but instead speaks to their gullibility. This is human, we’ve all been there, and we’ve all fallen victim to emotional and even sexual excitement even in the political arena. Given the highly emotionally charged atmosphere following 9/11, I should think we would all be a bit more understanding about how the CITIZENRY fell to emotional response. What we canNOT forgive, however, is the ways in which this administration – and the media – exploited those emotions to lead us into war.
Blaming the American voters for this is like blaming all those widows who fall victim to fraud after they lose their husbands.
Now, this trend started earlier, with the Reagan administration, and we all know how that got started on the emotional exploitation of the population after the kidnapping of US hostages in Tehran. Those events were part of a concerted effort on the part of the conservatives to take back power, and they intentionally played to the media by manipulating issues and the language, not to mention the entire democratic process.
Sadly, the Democrats have been caught flat-footed, partly because they have not been entirely guilt-free in these matters. But I don’t think any of us could have imagined just how bold and unbelievably cynical and brazen these guys could be, and intentionally so. Not to mention incompetent, to boot.
What surprises me is that you have bought the conservative talking point that this country is basically conservative. Well, that is just NOT true. Although most folks oddly believe the Bible is infallible and that creationism is real, they nevertheless believe we need a minimum wage, better education (that government supports), universal healthcare, no war, and justice for all. Increasingly they are pissed off that corporations are making out like bandits at every turn, and they are getting screwed.
Folks are not so gullible that they can be hoodwinked forever; Lincoln was right about that. In response to Hyperman’s question about another Big Wedding, I’ll be honest: I really don’t believe this country would buy into it like they did 9/11. I think the general public is highly cynical about that event now, having watched it get used and abused for the past six years. I also think that, should these idiots try to pull something like that, thinking this might be the only way to reverse the negative trends their suffering, it will backfire in an enormous way. Especially if they use it to increase their destruction of our Constitution and the freedoms and rights it guarantees.
And Hyperman, you’re right about the sports event nature of campaigns, but again, I sense the public is really sick of that. These dumb debates are geared solely to increase network revenues. Were the media required to give each candidate equal and free time, there would be NO debates, not even in the final months before election day.
It’s all a show, and folks are increasingly aware of that, and increasingly sick of it.
But thanks to the internet, we have generated a new faction that is looking beyond the MSM propaganda, and discovering that we have been lied to repeatedly, it’s opened up a whole new resource that is helping to change the terrain and what we can expect from it.
I’m going to say this yet again: all you have to do is look at the polls showing all this disillusionment, despite the MSM propaganda. People really are waking up.
Sure, there will always be those out there who live out the knee-jerk stupidity, but they are NOT in the majority. Not anymore.
And Joe, please place your point about CA’s voting out universal healthcare in 1996 in that post-Reagan media era. Your state also bought the recall of Grey Davis and blamed him for Enron’s mess, and then bought the Ahnuld nonsense. I only lived there a few years, but it is not as blue as folks like to believe.
But take note: things have changed considerably. Not only would that healthcare bill pass now, it would in every state in the country (and just wait till Sicko comes out). And CA quickly soured on the governator’s antics, to the point where he had to become extremely liberal to win the last election.
In sum, I’m with democracy lover on this point, which I actually echoed in our discussions a couple of weeks ago regarding Gore. This country is aching for a radically honest candidate who will speak sincerely about what we all need, and what we all need is no more of this conservative nightmare. To interpret that as calling for an extreme liberal is really itself an extreme reaction. The past 25 years have seen the Republicans move the notion of the center so far to the right that what was once a centrist can now be easily targeted as leftwing. We need to start by rejecting all this labeling and, like democracy lover asserted, insist on what this country needs.
Joe: All of this presupposes there WILL be an election. Hyperman raises the possibility of another Big Wedding and the effect that might have on the election. Bush has already anticipated that when he signed into law the proposals that give him the power to suspend the constitution in the event of some major event such as Big Wedding Mark 2. As one who believes that Big Wedding mark 1 was a domestically grown product, and American history is replete with false flag operations to justify a range of self serving options, discussion of the likely presidential candidates may be naively optimistic.
Joe,
If you're right, and I believe you are, the best thing we can do is get as many liberals to register as Republicans as possible. Perhaps we could then help the worst wackjob through the primaries, or attempt to promote the best (liberal) conservative candidate.
Good call onthelelction and "values"
I just wish we here in CA could break off and do our own thing. Sure there are plenty of Red Statist idiots here, but they don't stand too much in the way of getting things done or trying new govermental/ social experiments. I am tired of Washington and nation politics, what does America get from CA? Lots of tax money, What does CA get? Nothing, we are stuck with the whole lot of backward "values" idiots in the "heartland" constantly trying to drag us back to the stone ages for 6000 years ago when the Earth was created - whatever.
Post a Comment