No Future for the GOP?

R

rumble

Well-known member
craner said:
It's an aesthetic and ideological disaster in the same way this was for the left:

bush_nazi_hitler1.jpg
Click to expand...

you think?

I think that the visceral hatred and vilification of George Bush was a powerful rallying point for the Democratic grassroots. The Bush-as-belligerent-racist-ignorant-jock-proto-fascist bogeyman certainly drew a lot of lefties out of the anti-corporate Green Party and back into the pro-corporate Democratic party. Arousing the fear and hatred works on both sides, and if anything the Democrats should have done more to stoke those flames.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Ugh, no, I don't think so, it was ugly and stupid, and Democrats should've steered clear of it. Unfortunately the 2nd Bush administration collapse and desperation after the Kerry loss made a lot of Democrats lose their heads. Thus leading them to believe Obama was something he isn't: some kind of radical. Same mistake the Tea Party goons are making now. Obama's a surprisingly tough Chicago politician, but also uniquely level-headed and sane amongst US Presidents and Presidential candidates.
 
R

rumble

Well-known member
Alright, you don't think that the Kerry loss was in any way connected with his pro-war position? Do you think that Kerry was too far left, some sort of McGovern or something?
 
R

rumble

Well-known member
Well yeah, but Kerry was an incredibly terrible candidate too. Also worse than Dukakis.

Anyways, my main point is that the Democrats lose elections that they should win (Gore, Kerry) because they are afraid to get their hands dirty and do a little rabble rousing for fear of looking "irresponsible". The Republicans have no such hang-ups.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Not always true, Jimmy Carter ran a pretty pernicious Democtratic nomination campaign against Henry 'Scoop' Jackson. The Kerry campaign had its low points. I guess you're right, in that the Democratic-party/non-party grassroots infrastructre isn't there, or at least wasn't until Obama, who used it to be Clinton as well as McCain.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Also, I don't recall Bill being afraid to get his hands dirty; quite the opposite. Gore was a different proposition, though, I agree.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
craner said:
Not quite that far, but he was moving that way. The Fox flip-flop sting stood up.
Click to expand...

Kerry wasn't left, he wasn't right, he wasn't anything - he was that Steve Bell cartoon of people flying banners at the Dem nomination convention saying "somebody, anybody". That was the problem, and has been the problem for the Dems for too long. The GOP know what they're about the Dems, the Dems have been ideology-shy since McG and only win when they come up with a charismatic candidate.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Oh, fuck McGovern, that wasn't Democrat politics - they lost the FDR and Truman and 'Scoop' Jackson solid ground to the economic disasters under Nixon's 70s and Reagan snatching away foreign policy and then the depravities of the attempted Clinton dynasty. They've been rudderless since the sad downfall of LBJ who, whatever you say about Vietnam, was a remarkable politician.
 
Last edited:
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
craner said:
Oh, fuck McGovern, that wasn't Democrat politics
Click to expand...

I'm not sticking up for McGovern, just pointing out he (as, in his own way for a while, did Clinton) that articulated a clear line in a way Dukakis and Kerry didn't

- they lost the Truman and 'Scoop' Jackson solid ground
Click to expand...

Oh fuck, you're not waving the flag for the Vietnam War are you? That's too neo-crazy even for you.

They've been rudderless since the sad downfall of LBJ who, whatever you say about Vietnam, was a remarkable politician.
Click to expand...

No argument there.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Oh fuck, you're not waving the flag for the Vietnam War are you? That's too neo-crazy even for you.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, I'm not. That would be pinned on JFK and McNamara and LBJ and, later, Nixon and Kissinger, wouldn't it?
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Truman and Jackson were right on the USSR and Israel, though, and also on the importance of post-New Deal welfare. Solid Democrat politics.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
craner said:
Uh, no, I'm not. That would be pinned on JFK and McNamara and LBJ and, later, Nixon and Kissinger, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Good. So what was the reference to Truman and Scoop about? I don't know that much about them, beyond their notably hawkish anti-communism.

edit: I mean, obviously I know T was president for over 7 years, but not much about his domestic record, which I assume was largely a continuation of Roosevelt's.
 
Last edited:
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Truman = Cold War policy, which was important, welfare and the Marshall Plan. Jackson was also a stoic anti-communist, strong welfare state supporter, human rights campaigner, and, this is little known about him, an important environmentalist - he was intrumental in setting up some National Parks.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
craner said:
Truman = Cold War policy, which was important, welfare and the Marshall Plan. Jackson was also a stoic anti-communist, strong welfare state supporter, human rights campaigner, and, this is little known about him, an important environmentalist - he was intrumental in setting up some National Parks.
Click to expand...

Being pro-welfare was hardly controversial in the Dems c72.
 
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Scoop losing out to Carter was a disaster for the Democrats, I think -- and you might too, it virtually created a whole new generation of neoconservatives...Perle, Wolfowitz, Kirkpatrick, Abrahm...some talented and tough-minded and compassionate intellectuals went right after that loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top