Two weeks ago I was with Carville and I think he actually said something very similar to his quote at the end of the article.
The article is absolutely satirical (and quite funny), but I think The Onion unintentionally hits upon something that is true about the Democrats currently running your party. I think that many (but not all, if I must qualify that) Democrats want to believe that there is nothing good or positive about America. They want us to believe that everything that is wrong with this country is somehow Bush’s fault and that Bush has screwed up everything beyond repair. Whether that’s true or not, it’s not a message that people want to hear.
I will admit that the Democrats have succeeded to some degree in pushing this extremely negative view of Bush, and the polls suggest that people are buying into this. However, I think Bush-bashing will only go so far. Second-guessing is not a plan. At some point, one of them will have to provide reasonable alternatives to current policies instead of just saying that any plan will work except the one Bush has.
Ok. I’m done ranting now. 🙂
I totally disagree that many Democrats want to believe that there is nothing good about America. Actually it’s kind of insulting. I don’t know one Democrat, one American, that believes there is nothing good about America.
If politics is to be reduced to those who believe in America and those who don’t as related to the overall patriotism of the party, then certainly neither party is worthy of this government.
I disagree fundamentally with the Republican Party and its platform. But I in no way question their belief in the American Dream.
Sorry for my rant too 🙂
If what you say is true, then the Democrats who want to run that party need to work on their PR relating to positivity and hope for the future of this country because I’m just not seeing that from them right now. I thought that Tim Kaine’s inaugural address was a step in the right direction as far as this new positive message for the Dems. Then he promptly bombed the SOTU response.
There’s no need to be insulted, because I’m not talking about you. I’m not talking about the average Democrat. I’m talking about those like Gore and Clinton and Jimmy Carter who don’t see anything wrong with ripping America while on their overseas trips just so they can look good internationally. I’m talking about the eggheads in academia (soon excluding present company)who feed this line to young skulls full of mush who haven’t yet learned to think for themselves. That’s wrong. I don’t know any other way to say that.
Again…if the Democrats don’t want the American people to get this impression of their party, then they need to find new representation (like Obama, maybe?).
I could amend the previous comment to say “many Democratic leaders want us to believe that the country is irrevocably screwed up because of George W. Bush and they generally take a negative view of the future of this country”. That, I think, might be harder to argue with.
Is it accurate to say that many Democrats don’t believe that there is anything good about America? Maybe not. But they sure don’t act like they believe that America is worthy of defending to the rest of the world. Some of the public statements by those I mentioned above to foreign heads of state can’t be defended.
I don’t think it’s accurate at all to say that some, or many, or any Democrats don’t believe there is anything wrong with America. If you are a Republican, then the Democratic Party does not have to try to appeal to you and they won’t. It makes no sense for the Dems to try and get Republican votes, because they never will. And, truthfully, the Dems do not need one single Republican vote to get elected. There are more registered Democrats in this country than Republicans. Way more.
I know you don’t like the Bush bashing, but you must not have paid much attention during the 90s because that is all the Republicans did. If it’s wrong to bash Bush now, then it was very wrong for the Repubs to do it to Clinton. But in all reality, politics will never cease from such action. It’s the way things are, and both sides do their fair share of bashing.
I see no difference between Gore giving speeches in Saudi Arabia than George Bush hosting the Saudi royal family at the White House. Gore is a private citizen. His words and actions in no way represent the United States. Bush is president and a public figure. When he hosts the Sauid royal family at the White House in order to do both public and private dealings with the royals, I find that to be way more of a slap in the face than anything Gore or Carter has done.
If it’s wrong for Gore to travel to Saudi Arabia and give speeches, then how much more wrong is it for Bush to tuck the royals in at night in the White House, which is paid for with tax payers money. At least Gore spends his own money when he does those things and not mine and yours.
“But they sure dont act like they believe that America is worthy of defending to the rest of the world.”… I’m not sure what to say about that quote other than it’s just not true. There are more Democratic members of Congress that are veterans than Republicans. Plus 9 of the 10 Iraq war veterans running for office in 2006 are running on the Democratic ticket.
There is a difference between defending America and avenging your father.
I don’t think that the Democrats have figured out that they can’t get Republican votes. They definitely don’t need to worry about that any time soon if they continue doing what they are doing.
Can I excuse the Clinton-bashing? Probably not. But as you said, both sides do this, and it will no doubt continue to happen. That’s the way the game is played.
I’m not ok with Bush and the Saudis either. But if Gore was giving speeches as a private citizen and not as a former vice president, then he wouldn’t be paid as much and the press wouldn’t keep following him around. Former vice presidents will always be seen as representatives of America, whether they get money for speeches from taxpayers or from foreign countries.
But back to Bush and the Saudis. I think that Bush has not been as hard on them as he should be. The same goes for our “friend” Vicente Fox. Unfortunately, we need a good working relationship with the Saudis because of our oil dependence and the ongoing war on terror. The question is how much tougher Bush could be on them without damaging that relationship. I don’t know the answer to that.
I am not in any way minimizing the military service of the Democrats in Congress. I think it says something very honorable and wonderful about them that they served their country in this way. But if the Democrats really respected Iraq war veterans, then they wouldn’t have thrown Paul Hackett under the bus for a Democratic party insider.
Just my view. You may disagree…and you probably will. 😛
Im not aware of any plan or any Democrat out campaigning for Republican votes, but I could be wrong about that. The Democratic message, though, just like the Republican message, is meant for their own party ranks. I can disagree with something Republican all day long, but in the end I realize that they are not trying to appeal to me but to their own winged fringes.
If when Gore speaks he is viewed as a representative of America, and Ill agree that he is, his representation stops inasmuch that Gore is not in control of American policy, whereas the President of the United States is the complete and final word of American policy. And like you, I dont agree that American policy should be cuddlely with terrorist sponsoring heads of state like the Saudi royal family.
I agree that it was ignorant for Gore to give a speech about economic development in Saudi Arabia, in which the Saudi royal family did not attend, but at the end of the day at least hes not hosting them at the White House like Bush does a couple times a year and spending tax payer money on the event.
I dont know the answer to how much tougher Bush could be on the Saudis without it affecting our oil dependence either, but I do know that not only does it affect Americas oil supply but also that of Bushs personal bank account. If Gore gets paid by Saudi money to give speeches, then Bush gets paid by Saudi money to, well, be president and guarantee Americas dependence on Saudi oil. Bush is big oil through and through.
You are very correct about Paul Hackett. And not supporting Hackett was my final straw with the party as far as having a paid position with the Democrats. In other words, Hacket was the reason I accepted the college job and decided to leave the senate.
Of course, Dem leadership (Reid) says that they did not talk Hackett out of running, but just yesterday I was talking to one of Reids staffers who kept telling me that Hackett didnt deserve to be in the senate, which only goes to show me that Reid also feels the same way or at least likes to be in the company of those who do. The senate is a gentlemens club. Hackett would have been a positive change. And when the gentlemen make those kinds of decisions, then people like you and me lose.
That’s all well and good, except that I’m not sure that the Democratic base is comfortable with the message they have currently. Do they even have one consistent message right now?
You’re right that Gore isn’t in charge of US policy. You have no idea how happy I am that he’s not. It’s true that the President is the final word in foreign policy. That’s exactly why he can’t be careless with his relationship with the Saudis. That’s why I don’t think he’s in a position where it’s reasonable to expect that he will be brutally honest with them to the extent that we all would like him to be.
Here’s what I think happened with Hackett. I don’t think that the Democrats really wanted to be seen as anti-war, even though everything else Dean, Pelosi, Reid, etc, have been saying has indirectly pointed to that view. But then again…that’s just my non-expert opinion.
I would be curious to know the current message of the Republican party? Surely it’s not stay the course of the already terrible mess that we are in currently. Because if it is, it’s obviously not resonating too well with the public either.
If Bush can be cuddlely with the Saudis, despite or because of his position, then anyone can.
I don’t view Bush as being in a position to where he needs to be careful with his relationship with the Saudis, a relationship that goes back decades mind you. I see Bush in a position where he could bring justice to a country where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from, a country the 9/11 Report conlcuded had substantial links to funding and training al Qaeda and direct links to bin Laden and his wahabism. I doubt that you would be arguing that a Democratic president should be so careful.
I think with Hackett it’s not so much the anti-war stance, because Hackett did not run an anti-war campaign. He ran it’s time to come home campaign. But more to do with the fact that Hackett while in the senate would not abide by all the gentlemen’s rules that Kennedy and Reid would want him to.
Hackett was his own man who needed help with financing. But if he is anti-war, I’ll gladly take the word of someone who’s been to war and says it’s time to come home over someone’s who has never been to war and preaches how important it is that we stay the course.
Fair point. The Republicans haven’t taken advantage of the struggling Democrats as much as they should, but I think that they will. I don’t really know exactly when this will happen.
I’m not excusing anything Bush did in the past. Maybe you’re right. I don’t have all the details on the Bush-Saudi history. I’m not convinced that he has the ability to change anything in Saudi Arabia even if he made the attempt.
I don’t see much difference between what the anti-war people have said and what Hackett said. They both had a let’s bring the troops home now message. This is not to say that Hackett was as extreme as some of those anti-war protestors. But that part of the message was exactly the same.
I have mixed feelings about Iraq. Neither side seems to have a strong case. I just hope that someone smarter than I am is making those tough decisions.
You are plenty smart to make decisions. The problem is that smart people are not making the decisions.
I’m not sure wanting the troops brought home now is the same thing as being anti-war, however. Bush had plans to bring the troops home in May of 2003. And my neighbor who just returned back from Iraq four days ago, says it’s way past time to bring the troops home and that our work is done.
Hey, totally off topic, but if I remember right you are from SC and I was wondering if you knew Richard Davis, the guy from Trademark Properties? Sorry, totally off topic I know.
Nice blog. I’ll be back.
Squiggler,
Thanks for the compliment. I’m glad you liked it. 🙂
That is hilarious. I love The Onion.
Two weeks ago I was with Carville and I think he actually said something very similar to his quote at the end of the article.
The article is absolutely satirical (and quite funny), but I think The Onion unintentionally hits upon something that is true about the Democrats currently running your party. I think that many (but not all, if I must qualify that) Democrats want to believe that there is nothing good or positive about America. They want us to believe that everything that is wrong with this country is somehow Bush’s fault and that Bush has screwed up everything beyond repair. Whether that’s true or not, it’s not a message that people want to hear.
I will admit that the Democrats have succeeded to some degree in pushing this extremely negative view of Bush, and the polls suggest that people are buying into this. However, I think Bush-bashing will only go so far. Second-guessing is not a plan. At some point, one of them will have to provide reasonable alternatives to current policies instead of just saying that any plan will work except the one Bush has.
Ok. I’m done ranting now. 🙂
I totally disagree that many Democrats want to believe that there is nothing good about America. Actually it’s kind of insulting. I don’t know one Democrat, one American, that believes there is nothing good about America.
If politics is to be reduced to those who believe in America and those who don’t as related to the overall patriotism of the party, then certainly neither party is worthy of this government.
I disagree fundamentally with the Republican Party and its platform. But I in no way question their belief in the American Dream.
Sorry for my rant too 🙂
If what you say is true, then the Democrats who want to run that party need to work on their PR relating to positivity and hope for the future of this country because I’m just not seeing that from them right now. I thought that Tim Kaine’s inaugural address was a step in the right direction as far as this new positive message for the Dems. Then he promptly bombed the SOTU response.
There’s no need to be insulted, because I’m not talking about you. I’m not talking about the average Democrat. I’m talking about those like Gore and Clinton and Jimmy Carter who don’t see anything wrong with ripping America while on their overseas trips just so they can look good internationally. I’m talking about the eggheads in academia (soon excluding present company)who feed this line to young skulls full of mush who haven’t yet learned to think for themselves. That’s wrong. I don’t know any other way to say that.
Again…if the Democrats don’t want the American people to get this impression of their party, then they need to find new representation (like Obama, maybe?).
I could amend the previous comment to say “many Democratic leaders want us to believe that the country is irrevocably screwed up because of George W. Bush and they generally take a negative view of the future of this country”. That, I think, might be harder to argue with.
Is it accurate to say that many Democrats don’t believe that there is anything good about America? Maybe not. But they sure don’t act like they believe that America is worthy of defending to the rest of the world. Some of the public statements by those I mentioned above to foreign heads of state can’t be defended.
I don’t think it’s accurate at all to say that some, or many, or any Democrats don’t believe there is anything wrong with America. If you are a Republican, then the Democratic Party does not have to try to appeal to you and they won’t. It makes no sense for the Dems to try and get Republican votes, because they never will. And, truthfully, the Dems do not need one single Republican vote to get elected. There are more registered Democrats in this country than Republicans. Way more.
I know you don’t like the Bush bashing, but you must not have paid much attention during the 90s because that is all the Republicans did. If it’s wrong to bash Bush now, then it was very wrong for the Repubs to do it to Clinton. But in all reality, politics will never cease from such action. It’s the way things are, and both sides do their fair share of bashing.
I see no difference between Gore giving speeches in Saudi Arabia than George Bush hosting the Saudi royal family at the White House. Gore is a private citizen. His words and actions in no way represent the United States. Bush is president and a public figure. When he hosts the Sauid royal family at the White House in order to do both public and private dealings with the royals, I find that to be way more of a slap in the face than anything Gore or Carter has done.
If it’s wrong for Gore to travel to Saudi Arabia and give speeches, then how much more wrong is it for Bush to tuck the royals in at night in the White House, which is paid for with tax payers money. At least Gore spends his own money when he does those things and not mine and yours.
“But they sure dont act like they believe that America is worthy of defending to the rest of the world.”… I’m not sure what to say about that quote other than it’s just not true. There are more Democratic members of Congress that are veterans than Republicans. Plus 9 of the 10 Iraq war veterans running for office in 2006 are running on the Democratic ticket.
There is a difference between defending America and avenging your father.
I don’t think that the Democrats have figured out that they can’t get Republican votes. They definitely don’t need to worry about that any time soon if they continue doing what they are doing.
Can I excuse the Clinton-bashing? Probably not. But as you said, both sides do this, and it will no doubt continue to happen. That’s the way the game is played.
I’m not ok with Bush and the Saudis either. But if Gore was giving speeches as a private citizen and not as a former vice president, then he wouldn’t be paid as much and the press wouldn’t keep following him around. Former vice presidents will always be seen as representatives of America, whether they get money for speeches from taxpayers or from foreign countries.
But back to Bush and the Saudis. I think that Bush has not been as hard on them as he should be. The same goes for our “friend” Vicente Fox. Unfortunately, we need a good working relationship with the Saudis because of our oil dependence and the ongoing war on terror. The question is how much tougher Bush could be on them without damaging that relationship. I don’t know the answer to that.
I am not in any way minimizing the military service of the Democrats in Congress. I think it says something very honorable and wonderful about them that they served their country in this way. But if the Democrats really respected Iraq war veterans, then they wouldn’t have thrown Paul Hackett under the bus for a Democratic party insider.
Just my view. You may disagree…and you probably will. 😛
Im not aware of any plan or any Democrat out campaigning for Republican votes, but I could be wrong about that. The Democratic message, though, just like the Republican message, is meant for their own party ranks. I can disagree with something Republican all day long, but in the end I realize that they are not trying to appeal to me but to their own winged fringes.
If when Gore speaks he is viewed as a representative of America, and Ill agree that he is, his representation stops inasmuch that Gore is not in control of American policy, whereas the President of the United States is the complete and final word of American policy. And like you, I dont agree that American policy should be cuddlely with terrorist sponsoring heads of state like the Saudi royal family.
I agree that it was ignorant for Gore to give a speech about economic development in Saudi Arabia, in which the Saudi royal family did not attend, but at the end of the day at least hes not hosting them at the White House like Bush does a couple times a year and spending tax payer money on the event.
I dont know the answer to how much tougher Bush could be on the Saudis without it affecting our oil dependence either, but I do know that not only does it affect Americas oil supply but also that of Bushs personal bank account. If Gore gets paid by Saudi money to give speeches, then Bush gets paid by Saudi money to, well, be president and guarantee Americas dependence on Saudi oil. Bush is big oil through and through.
You are very correct about Paul Hackett. And not supporting Hackett was my final straw with the party as far as having a paid position with the Democrats. In other words, Hacket was the reason I accepted the college job and decided to leave the senate.
Of course, Dem leadership (Reid) says that they did not talk Hackett out of running, but just yesterday I was talking to one of Reids staffers who kept telling me that Hackett didnt deserve to be in the senate, which only goes to show me that Reid also feels the same way or at least likes to be in the company of those who do. The senate is a gentlemens club. Hackett would have been a positive change. And when the gentlemen make those kinds of decisions, then people like you and me lose.
That’s all well and good, except that I’m not sure that the Democratic base is comfortable with the message they have currently. Do they even have one consistent message right now?
You’re right that Gore isn’t in charge of US policy. You have no idea how happy I am that he’s not. It’s true that the President is the final word in foreign policy. That’s exactly why he can’t be careless with his relationship with the Saudis. That’s why I don’t think he’s in a position where it’s reasonable to expect that he will be brutally honest with them to the extent that we all would like him to be.
Here’s what I think happened with Hackett. I don’t think that the Democrats really wanted to be seen as anti-war, even though everything else Dean, Pelosi, Reid, etc, have been saying has indirectly pointed to that view. But then again…that’s just my non-expert opinion.
I would be curious to know the current message of the Republican party? Surely it’s not stay the course of the already terrible mess that we are in currently. Because if it is, it’s obviously not resonating too well with the public either.
If Bush can be cuddlely with the Saudis, despite or because of his position, then anyone can.
I don’t view Bush as being in a position to where he needs to be careful with his relationship with the Saudis, a relationship that goes back decades mind you. I see Bush in a position where he could bring justice to a country where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from, a country the 9/11 Report conlcuded had substantial links to funding and training al Qaeda and direct links to bin Laden and his wahabism. I doubt that you would be arguing that a Democratic president should be so careful.
I think with Hackett it’s not so much the anti-war stance, because Hackett did not run an anti-war campaign. He ran it’s time to come home campaign. But more to do with the fact that Hackett while in the senate would not abide by all the gentlemen’s rules that Kennedy and Reid would want him to.
Hackett was his own man who needed help with financing. But if he is anti-war, I’ll gladly take the word of someone who’s been to war and says it’s time to come home over someone’s who has never been to war and preaches how important it is that we stay the course.
Fair point. The Republicans haven’t taken advantage of the struggling Democrats as much as they should, but I think that they will. I don’t really know exactly when this will happen.
I’m not excusing anything Bush did in the past. Maybe you’re right. I don’t have all the details on the Bush-Saudi history. I’m not convinced that he has the ability to change anything in Saudi Arabia even if he made the attempt.
I don’t see much difference between what the anti-war people have said and what Hackett said. They both had a let’s bring the troops home now message. This is not to say that Hackett was as extreme as some of those anti-war protestors. But that part of the message was exactly the same.
I have mixed feelings about Iraq. Neither side seems to have a strong case. I just hope that someone smarter than I am is making those tough decisions.
You are plenty smart to make decisions. The problem is that smart people are not making the decisions.
I’m not sure wanting the troops brought home now is the same thing as being anti-war, however. Bush had plans to bring the troops home in May of 2003. And my neighbor who just returned back from Iraq four days ago, says it’s way past time to bring the troops home and that our work is done.
Hey, totally off topic, but if I remember right you are from SC and I was wondering if you knew Richard Davis, the guy from Trademark Properties? Sorry, totally off topic I know.
Nice blog. I’ll be back.
Squiggler,
Thanks for the compliment. I’m glad you liked it. 🙂