It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Democrats Fail To Gain By GOP Blunders

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 11:05 AM
Brilliant piece, from a leftist publication, believe it or not.

Are the Democrats too ideological to win elections? Hardly: they’re not ideological enough. What do they want on Iraq, energy, trade, tax cuts, etc., except to criticize the G.O.P.?

"A disease is running rampant through the American left these days. Its symptoms are intense and increasingly pervasive in every corner of the self-proclaimed “progressive” coalition. A good name for the disease could be “Partisan War Syndrome” - and it is eating away at what remains of progressives’ ideological underpinnings and the Democratic Party’s ability to win elections over the long haul.

The disease is simple to understand: It leads the supposedly “ideological” grassroots left to increasingly subvert its overarching ideology on issues in favor of pure partisan concerns. That may sound great at first glance. Democratic Party officials always talk about a need for “big tent unity” and subsequently try to downplay ideology. But as a trait of the grassroots and not just the party, Partisan War Syndrome could be positively devastating not just for issue advocacy, but also for Democrats’ political aspirations as well.

The main symptoms of Partisan War Syndrome are hallucination, delirium and obsessive compulsive behavior, with those afflicted losing almost all perspective about what winning politics really is all about."

posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 02:08 PM
Good find. That has been my contention all along. The dems have many variables on their side, willing partisan media and simple"touchy-feely" sound bites to name a couple. Yet they never tell you what they want to do that is different. They just attack and criticize. This is not a winning strategy. The fact is, although the dems love to attack Bush, he is just about as left as Bill Clinton was. He spends money hand over fist, he passes extraneous regulations, and essentially is "big govenrment" which is the traditional democrat position. Other than the war in Iraq, there is not much the dems would or could do different than Bush. In regard to Iraq, it serves no purpose to keep saying "woulda coulda shoulda". We are there and that is the issue at hand. What can dems say they would do different right now today? Increase defense spending (never a dem issue) Pull the troops out now? (they would never do that) Set a timetable? (they wouldn't do that either).

The dems have lost their middle class, blue collar base. They now rely on condescending coastal elitist, far left quasi-anarchists, and african-americans (which as they realize how their votes are being brokered by black leaders not unlike slave traders to the democrats, are emancipating themselves from their democrat party masters, slowly but surely).

Even with all the attacks, the dems still will not win any election until they can communicate a detailed plan to the American people and sell them on it honestly. The "we are not Bush" only strategy will not work, especially since he isn't even up for re-election.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Apoc]

new topics

log in