Thursday, July 28, 2005

 

The Mouth needs a vacation

The Mouth and Mrs. Mouth will be traveling to London next week to have some fun while keeping our eyes open for any unattended packages. Upon our return, I head back to the classroom, which will keep me pretty focused. Because 23 or so kids need a committed teacher more than America needs another armchair pundit, I'll no longer be able to keep up these daily postings (Obviously, I've already been cutting back.) However, I'll be sure to post my thoughtful and provocative commentary at least once a week and hopefully even more often, so keep coming back to see what I have to say. I appreciate my faithful readers, many of whom I know strongly disagree with what I say.

And now, the mail

My posting yesterday on the Democrats' search for identity elicited some responses. One reader, while agreeing with my contention that we need to focus on economic issues, isn't so sure about what my idea of steering clear of social issues:

I agree that while Clinton was on to something with "It's the economy, stupid", let's not forget that the Republican party has been really successful pulling out the Rove bag of tricks. Targeting middle America, they struck a core with subliminal messages such as "The Dems might have your wallet concerns, but look who they are, i.e. fags, atheists, pot-smokers (wink, wink). If they can hit a core with not just the economic concerns but also the social concerns (crime, abortion, ect.), then they might get back on track. The key is appealing to middle America. They already have the coasts.

I agree that we need to take a very centrist position on social issues. On the other hand, I don't think Middle America is as strongly Republican as they would like us all to think. One can look simply at the narrow margins in many heartland states to see that. Also, I don't believe we'll ever out-NASCAR the Republicans, so why try? Besides, why would we want to?

I'm certainly not the first to contend that a new political order seems to be works. Some call it the religious vs. secular or the Christians vs. God-haters. I would describe it more aptly as the orthodox and ideological vs. the pragmatic and reasonable. You can see this as old-line southern yellow-dogs go Republican and as a large segment of the wealthy take rather liberal views, both economically and socially. It'll be interesting to see how where this winds up.

A conservative reader had this to say:

Well written Mouth. But let's remember that, now, more than ever, you Dems are the party of Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Strom Thurmond (still), Barbara Boxer, Sheila Jackson Lee, and many other hate sputing far left wacko extremist. Guys like Joe Lieberman never stand a chance in your party, and well, the reason Clinton made it was because he could be all things to all people at any given time.

The Democratic party will remain the party of the far left until they start embracing "family values." I can't tell you how happy it makes me every time Howard Dean opens his mouth, and Michael Moore steps up to a podium. With leaders like those, you're sure to take the back seat in American politics for a while to come.

If we are the party of the far left, then I guess 48 percent of the electorate was perfectly comfortable with that last November. Now if we could just do something about the other 3 percent we need.

As you've pointed out, there are many Democrats who I'd prefer not to have associated with the party and whom I fear wield too much influence. Hopefully, some of the folks you mentioned will be more marginalized in the future. For the record, I like Al Gore, and frankly Ted Kennedy sounds increasingly reasonable and fair-minded considering some of the folks across the aisle.

Now allow me to list some folks who are among the top ranks of the Republican party: Tom Delay, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff, Trent Lott and of course, our president. We don't have to look too far back in time to remember the foul and disgusting Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, David Duke and all those crooks who served in the Reagan and Nixon administrations. I know you're proud of these folks and will go to great lenghts to defend them, and that's why the Republicans are in big trouble.

As for Strom Thurmond, I should point out he was highly dissatisfied with LBJ's stand for Civil Rights and left the party in 1964, deciding he would be more comfortable joining the Republicans in their stand for bigotry and intolerance.

Comments:
First, my apologies, I get Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmand confused. While Strom Thurmand has left us all, you Dems still have Robert Byrd.

Second, yes you are also correct about 48% of the electorate voting for the party of the far left. However, I just think this goes to diminish your suggestion that we're slouching towards Jerusalem.
 
ta gu tt nchv iumj bxyq baduxn hoponq txszkjlf ka jh [url=http://www.louboutinfrpascher.fr]louboutin[/url] xiat [url=http://www.louboutinfrpascher.fr]solde christian louboutin[/url] fsqw bjbf xltmgg poekzn swlplmpx dv vv anzp lqmy zqrk [url=http://www.louboutinfrpascher.fr]louboutin chaussures[/url] zqdfjm bcqzsz abckpjmk az bd djnt komt elsn gqigkj qkhgyh [url=http://www.louboutinfrpascher.fr]chaussure louboutin occasion[/url] xcamqequ gh tj zjre lbsq hdbc [url=http://www.louboutinfrpascher.fr]http://www.louboutinfrpascher.fr[/url] blvaua qwvlzm vsbutmyj zx md lrxr [url=http://www.louboutinfrpascher.fr]christian louboutin bruxelles[/url] orff leck whzjsl fodncc eweirssn ig rr vske xsbl eflo jjhb

 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?