But they won’t. They can’t do any worse. Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s former campaign adviser, offers the Democrats some good advice. In fact, she’s been saying the following for a long time:
“Republicans are using religion to separate us from our constituency,” [I disagree with her here, of course] Brazile said. “We need to become the party of reform. Most Americans believe we’re liberal elitists who are out of touch with real people. That was yesterday. Now we have to get them to believe we’re an important force in checking the Republicans’ abuse of power.“And we have to offer positive alternatives. We cannot just be the party of no, no, no,” she said. Instead of complaining about GOP efforts to strip away the power to block judicial nominees through filibusters, Democrats should be explaining why the judges they are blocking are bad, and stressing the overwhelming percentage of judicial nominees who are approved.
Brazile said she’s tired of watching Sunday morning talk shows “and seeing five different Democratic leaders give five different positions on Iraq.” She also said Democrats can’t be satisfied with just blocking President Bush’s proposal for private Social Security accounts, they have to convince voters they would fix the system if they were in charge….She argues she’s just a consultant, pointing out to the people who hold office the flaws she sees in the Democratic strategy, and the things Republicans are doing right that should be cause for concern. (Source)
The Democrats are a very reactionary group. They’ve got nothing fresh or wholesome to offer, so they merely react to whatever Republicans are doing. Granted, they are the minority party and have to do a fair amount of reacting, but that’s all they seem to do. One hilarious aspect of their November election losses was the whining about “failing to get out the message.” Some really believe that’s why they lost.
Not so, of course. Democrats lost precisely because they got the message out, loudly and clearly, and the majority of voters didn’t want to hear it. Policies based on child killing and marriage between anyone and anything are repugnant to most people, whether they admit to it or not.
[A commenter says "marriage between anyone and anything" is over the top. Could be. But if you want to argue that two men should be allowed to "marry," an argument could be made that three people should be allowed, or four or ten. Do we limit "marriage" to only two? Why? Isn't that a violation of somebody's civil rights? I can see the analogy being extended to the unspeakable quite easily.]
Last year Brazile e-mailed me in response to Condi Rice, Donna Brazile And The White Boys. The post itself was a response to one of Ann Coulter’s columns. She criticized liberals for their hypocrisy in questioning Rice’s qualifications to be Secretary of State, while they had no such doubt about some of Bill Clinton’s not-so-qualified appointees. Coulter commented on Brazile’s remark about not the letting the “white boys win in this election.” As you may know, “white boys” in a political context usually refers to conservatives, although the man Brazile was campaigning for was indeed a “white boy.”
I don’t recall if Brazile addressed the “white boy” comment in her e-mail (I’m searching for it now), but she wrote this about Rice: “I fully support Dr. Rice…not withstanding my politics as a self proclaimed liberal Democrat. Dr. Rice will have the strong support of many Black Democratic women and so many others.”
That’s good to know, but if Brazile plans on “consulting” the liberal white boys on how to use “religion” to win back the vote, she’s wasting her well-paid time. Expressions of faith need to be natural and genuine and part of who you are. Using “moral values” as a political ploy to get voters when your moral values are in conflict with most Americans is a bad strategy.
Maybe I should do some consulting for the Democrats. Seeking advice from one of their own will probably result in more of the same: election losses.
Related: When Worlds Collide
