Vichy Dems strike again
Check out this uproarious article from the NY Times today.
Done? Okay.
Now this is laugh out loud funny. What this is, is a hit piece on Howard Dean and the Progressives. Three paragraphs in, I could have told you it was written by Nagourney, the same SOB that writes at least one hatchet piece on Dems every week in the NYT.
Look at who is talking--a Tennessee governor, Barack "Mr. Purple" Obama, and Chris Dodd, who just happens to be a DLC shill and former DNC chairman--the position Howard Dean used to have.
The article says that "But among more establishment Democrats, there is concern that many of the party's most visible leaders — among them, Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Senator John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential candidate; Mr. Kennedy; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader; and Al Gore, who has assumed a higher profile as the party heads toward the 2008 presidential primaries — may be flawed messengers."
LMAO! Among more establishment Democrats. Yep. Never mind the fact that Harry Reid has done amazing things despite an imperial presidency and being outnumbered; never mind that Howard Dean has raised more than 5 times the comparable amount in an election cycle; and never mind that harsher rhetoric has helped send Bush's approval rating and the Iraq war rating to abysmal levels.
Meanwhile, John Kerry worries that there is no single party voice to address the nation. Gee, I wonder why John would say that? THAT's not self-serving or anything.
There are only two truths:
1)Just like the 90's GOP, the more aggressive we get, the better off we are; and
2) Voters have throw-the-bums out mentality right now which will lead to HUGE Dem gains in '06. All we really need to do is keep it stoked for the moment, and then lay out our own plan (which we have and are sitting on--complete with a minimum wage increase, a health plan, and many other popular measures) when the time is right: during the height of the Abramoff scandal in May and June.
The reason these "establishment Democrats" are worried is because the names mentioned in the article as being "of concern" are the strongest voices we have in the party, and the ones likeliest, frankly, to call Bush's shit what it is: shit. "
"Establishment" Dems would rather lose and stay comfy, than fight, take a chance and win. They want to emphasize education and healthcare--just like Kerry's idiotic pollster said to me during the election year. Because it's comfy, and they'll hang onto their ever shrinking party that way. Republicans know that over-the-top aggressive rhetoric works wonders for a minority party, and that their party sent their quivering moderates packing during the late 80s and early 90's. So shall it be with us.
Done? Okay.
Now this is laugh out loud funny. What this is, is a hit piece on Howard Dean and the Progressives. Three paragraphs in, I could have told you it was written by Nagourney, the same SOB that writes at least one hatchet piece on Dems every week in the NYT.
Look at who is talking--a Tennessee governor, Barack "Mr. Purple" Obama, and Chris Dodd, who just happens to be a DLC shill and former DNC chairman--the position Howard Dean used to have.
The article says that "But among more establishment Democrats, there is concern that many of the party's most visible leaders — among them, Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Senator John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential candidate; Mr. Kennedy; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader; and Al Gore, who has assumed a higher profile as the party heads toward the 2008 presidential primaries — may be flawed messengers."
LMAO! Among more establishment Democrats. Yep. Never mind the fact that Harry Reid has done amazing things despite an imperial presidency and being outnumbered; never mind that Howard Dean has raised more than 5 times the comparable amount in an election cycle; and never mind that harsher rhetoric has helped send Bush's approval rating and the Iraq war rating to abysmal levels.
Meanwhile, John Kerry worries that there is no single party voice to address the nation. Gee, I wonder why John would say that? THAT's not self-serving or anything.
There are only two truths:
1)Just like the 90's GOP, the more aggressive we get, the better off we are; and
2) Voters have throw-the-bums out mentality right now which will lead to HUGE Dem gains in '06. All we really need to do is keep it stoked for the moment, and then lay out our own plan (which we have and are sitting on--complete with a minimum wage increase, a health plan, and many other popular measures) when the time is right: during the height of the Abramoff scandal in May and June.
The reason these "establishment Democrats" are worried is because the names mentioned in the article as being "of concern" are the strongest voices we have in the party, and the ones likeliest, frankly, to call Bush's shit what it is: shit. "
"Establishment" Dems would rather lose and stay comfy, than fight, take a chance and win. They want to emphasize education and healthcare--just like Kerry's idiotic pollster said to me during the election year. Because it's comfy, and they'll hang onto their ever shrinking party that way. Republicans know that over-the-top aggressive rhetoric works wonders for a minority party, and that their party sent their quivering moderates packing during the late 80s and early 90's. So shall it be with us.
posted by thereisnospoon at 2:31 PM
2 Comments:
One of my readers had a question about "establishment" vs "Vichy" dems, and in chewing on that question I found this post and revisted that Nagourney article, which I hadn't paid a lot of attention to before. I then riffed on it a little on my own blog. You might enjoy reading a couple of my posts: here and here.
Anyway, thanks for a good post that helped me out!
good posts! Thanks for stopping by!
Post a Comment
<< Home