Posted by
Icarus on Sunday, November 02, 2008 9:12:38 PM
America with Democrats at the Wheel
Michael Medved wrote an incisive column describing the myths behind the notion that one can win by losing. On most of his points I think he is dead on. On others I think he is dead wrong.
The myths Michael clearly knocks down are 1) Obama's Leftism will make him a one term president, 2) whatever damage an Obama Presidency causes can be corrected, 3) an Obama Presidency will pave the way for a Reagan-ite victory in 2012. I agree with what Medved writes concerning these myths. Conservatives who buy into them are simply fooling themselves.
Myth #4 concerns the possibility of a Palin candidacy in 2012. Michael is of the opinion that failed VP nominees have no future in national politics. I think Michael is quite mistaken on this point. True that Joe Leiberman and John Edwards had no future, but I think a large part of that is simply a rejection of the ideas they embody, not because they were on the losing side of a Presidential ticket. With regards to Dan Quayle, his career ended because of the MSM attack dogs implanting in the public consciousness the idea that man was dumb. Michael ignores this aspect when it comes to Quayle's political career. His example of FDR winning I think proves my point, not his. FDR was both embraced by the public. Being on the losing side of a Presidential ticket had no impact on his future career.
Myth #5 concerns how political parties react to significant loses. Michael states that both Republicans and Democrats move to the center after major loses. Republicans move to the Left and Democrats move to the Right. Describing Republican action, I think he is correct. Clearly Republicans move to the Left when they lose. Democrats, however, almost always move further Left.
When Democrats lost both houses of Congress, they did not win it back with Centrists. They won it back with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and many others. Am I supposed to believe that a San Francisco Leftist is a "Moderate"? Michael gives a litany of Democrat Presidential candidates that he describes as "relatively centrist, purportedly non-ideological". These candidates were Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore. These are "non-ideological" and "centris"?!? Mondale lost because he flat-out stated that he was going to raise taxes. Dukakis lost, in part, because he foolishly pretended to be a tough, pro-military guy. He became a laughing stock riding in that tank, because no one believed it. The first think Clinton tried to do as POTUS was allow open homosexuals in the military and nationalize health care. These were "non-ideological" and "centrist"ideas? Who is Michael trying to kid?
And that brings us to Sen. Obama. The only way Michael could believe that this is a "non-ideological" and "centrist" candidate is if he buys the rhetoric the One Term Senator from Illinois is selling. The Democrat Party could only have nominated a more radically Left wing candidate if it had put domestic terrorist, SDS alumnus, William Ayers on the ticket.
Quite simply when Democrats lose, they move further Left. The reasons for this, may be numerous. One major factor allowing Democrats to move further and further Left is a compliant, strongly Left-wing the Main Stream Media. The MSM never questions Democrat's radical Left-wing agenda, because they simply agree with it. The MSM wants health-care nationalized. They do not like corporations, even though all of them work for one. They do not like the military. They agree with Obama's comments made at a San Francisco rally, that rural Americans are nothing more than a bunch of fearful rubes, clinging to God and guns.
So America has two political parties that are moving Left-ward. Republicans seem to be doing it more slowly then the Democrats.