Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Why The Democrats Suck

I loved George Clooney's acceptance speach at the Oscars, the whole "yeah, Hollywood is out of touch with America, and I'm PROUD of it!" bit. I mean, yeah, you can question whether his assesment of progressive Hollywood was factually correct, but I like the sentiment. It's the first time in a long, long time that I've seen a public figure stand up and say "I'm liberal, and I'm proud of that fact." I wish our Democratic politicians would say something like that, and I guess I hope that by having an actor say it, the seeds are planted for the dream to become reality.

It's hard to be very optimistic about the Democrats. Here we are, a year and a half out from November '04, and it doesn't look like they've learned any lessons. The primary lesson being that Americans won't vote for someone who is too much of a pussy to stand up and say exactly what they believe. See, I think Kerry misinterpreted that huge block of undecided voters. He saw those numbers, and thought "Bush is fucking things up so badly, if I just don't say anything to offend those undecideds, I'll win." What I believe was actually happening was that those people were really hating Bush, and were saying to Kerry, "just give us a reason to vote for you. Just spell out what you're going to do, and we'll go with you." Which, of course, he never did, leaving the Democrats to skulk like the nerdy nice guy who can't understand why the girls all go for the overconfident jerks.

Right now is a golden opportunity for the Democaratic Party. Bushism is dead. But if they can't present a decent alternative, then Bushism will just be replaced by Reaganism.

See, the problems with the Democrats all go back to 1980, when Reagan bitch-slapped them good, and made "liberal" a dirty word, and the Democrats seem to have bought into Reagan's bullshit as much as anyone. 25 years ago, Reagan laid out his philosophy in "The government is not the answer to our problems. The government IS the problem," and the Democrats STILL haven't answered him. And until they do, they're going to keep losing elections, because they're still running on "higher taxes, more government interference." That's what liberalism means, AS DEFINED BY RONALD REAGAN. And until they offer their own definition, that's what it means to America.

So this is what I want to hear a Democrat say:

When you drink a glass of water, you don't have to wonder whether it has toxic levels of pollutants in it. When you buy food at the supermarket, you know exactly what it contains. You know the car you drive is up to certain safety standards. You know the buildings you live and work in are up to code. You know that if your boss tells you to come in on the weekend to get some stuff done, he'll have to pay you time and a half. You know that if you get laid off, you'll have an unemployment check to at least keep your family from starving or getting evicted until you can get a new job. You don't have to worry about any of these things. Why? BECAUSE LIBERALS SPENT THE LAST 100 YEARS FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL AGAINST CONSERVATIVES TO MAKE IT SO.

That's what "big government" means. People hear the words "big government" and they have a negative reaction, but they're not reacting to that sort of thing. They're reacting to the idea of the government wiretapping their phone, or trying to tell them whom they can and cannot marry--the kind of stuff the Republicans are in favor of!

But I don't see anyone in congress right now saying that kind of thing (God, I would be so happy if Kerry, Hilary, Lieberman and the rest of those useless fucks got voted out in the Democratic primary next year!). I suppose there's Barrak Obama, but he's too green to run in '08. Probably better to look at the Governors for our pool, but I don't see much happening there, either. If only RFK, Jr. didn't have that fucked up voice! But I know Americans would vote against him just so they wouldn't have to listen to that shit for 4 years.

The possibility I like: bring back Gary Hart! The guy's an outspoken liberal, tough on national defense, was trying to do something about terrorism long before 9/11, and got sidelined because of a sex scandal that seemed like a big deal in '88, but is hardly worth mentioning post-Clinton. Hart in '08: All Is Forgiven!

And if not, there's always George Clooney. It worked for the Republicans.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home