http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/o...partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position= No Surrender By PAUL KRUGMAN President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda. Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism. This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback. I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality. Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes. So what should the Democrats do? One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition. Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states. But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base. Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage. Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base. In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won. What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year. Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will. It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I'll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I'll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.
Ready to rally around any leader? The truth is, had Bill Clinton or John Kerry been in office, no action would have been taken and there would be nobody to rally around. Although, he's probably right that if 9/11 hadn't happened - Bush wouldn't have been re-elected. And let me guess, Clinton would have made the economy better? Republicans let idiology trump reality????? Republicans aren't the ones attempting to institute a provenly failed system known as Socialism! :cuss: :cuss: :angryfire So republicans are just redneck, ignorant racists now??? Because the world would be so much better if Democrats were in charge... Everybody would just sit on their ass waiting for the government to give them their check. :dis:
The fanatics keep shoveling their sh*t. And no, I don't mean anyone who voted for Kerry, I mean the extreme left wing sh*t stirrers. I hope they keep it up for the next four years. Piss even more people off next time around and then watch Hillary go down even harder than she already will. The more they bitch and moan the more people will despise them. Here are a couple of examples from fat bastard's website that go along with this article. He follows this with a listing of the soldiers who have died in Iraq. I hope this ********* rots in hell. In the meantime, he gets four more years to make money off other idiots like himself. http://www.michaelmoore.com/
If 9/11 is the ONLY reason that Bush was re-elected, as the writer suggested, then why did Bush lose in the northeast, filled with people directly affected by the attacks? The venom spewed in that column was easily as divisive as he says the Republicans are. How long are we going to hear about red states vs. blue states (with red states, of course, being reviled as bastions of ignorant, illiterate, religious zealots)?
