On Wednesday, November 5, 2008, newspaper headlines will tell
us that the Republican presidential candidate has defeated the
Democrat. It is generally ill advised to make predictions about
an electoral outcome, especially three years in advance. It is
less dangerous to do so where the Democratic Party is concerned.
The winner may be Jeb Bush, or it may be Arnold
Schwarzenegger. Don’t worry about who the Republican victor will
be. Just know that the Democratic Party is once again on the
road to Loserville.
Amazingly, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) still holds
sway. Despite the fact that their strategy has kept the House of
Representatives in Republican hands for the last ten years, despite
the loss of the Senate and two presidential elections, they are
still a force to be reckoned with.
Most losers eventually figure out that they should just shut up
and disappear, but not our friends at the DLC. They keep on talking,
under the bizarre premise that if they just keep doing what they
have been doing they will get a different result. Yes, that is
a definition of insanity.
Right after Election Day 2004, Al From, founder
of the august organization, told us all who was to blame for
John Kerry’s loss.
The evildoer was none other than film maker Michael Moore.
“We need to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not
Michael Moore,” Al From and his buddy Bruce Reed frothed in the Wall
Street Journal, soon after the election.
“So let the glitterati in Hollywood and Cannes fawn over Michael
Moore; Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism
of the conspiracy-mongering left," wrote Will Marshall, December
13, in the DLC’s online organ, NDOL.org.
From and Reed returned to Moore-bashing in
the same issue: “We must leave no doubt that Michael Moore neither
represents nor defines our party.”
The problem wasn’t with their candidate, a man who hesitated to
fight back when attacked by liars. It wasn’t the man who so muddled
his message on Iraq that many voters couldn’t tell how or if his
policies would have differed from Bush’s. Michael Moore, who unlike
From played no role in the loser’s campaign, was to blame.
From said nothing about the vote theft in Ohio,
the missing voting machines and discarded provisional ballots.
He said nothing about
electronic vote fraud. He wouldn’t even admit that he and his friends
backed the wrong horse.
Not content to obsess over Michael Moore, the
DLC folks are still keeping us in shock and awe. In a memo entitled “What
We Stand For” we get wisdom like this:
It isn’t clear if they need lessons in logic or in grammar.
Americans had a lot of trouble telling the difference between
Kerry and Bush. That is why many of them chose not to change
a horse in midstream. They know quite well that the Democrats
don’t stand for much of anything.
Nowhere in the tepid “What We Stand For” manifesto
does Al From mention Republican efforts to disenfranchise Democrats.
of Georgia and Indiana are on the verge of passing legislation
mandating that voters present photo identification
at polling places. Does the DLC stand for voting rights or is
it like Senator Kerry, unwilling to take a stand and speak up
for millions of disenfranchised Americans?
In keeping with the twilight zone thinking
of the DLC, From even manages to get in his digs at Howard
Dean. Dean, who like
Michael Moore wasn’t the candidate. Dean is still not safe from
DLC attacks. From has the gall to lecture Dean with a snide bit
of advice. “First do no harm.” Did From ever have similar smart
ass words for mega loser Terry McAuliffe? It doesn’t matter that
the Democratic plight worsened under former Democratic National
Committee Chairman McAuliffe's watch. He was one of From’s pals.
Apparently that is all that counts with the party that elevates
losing to a cult status.
From isn’t the only DLCer who knows the sure
road to a concession speech. Senator Evan Bayh, who dreams
of running for president
himself, has penned a tome that
tells Democrats nothing of any use:
What a joke. Bayh and friends saw too many
propaganda photos of Iraqis with ink on their fingers and immediately
took a dive.
The mess in Iraq is all of America’s making. Every problem from
starving kids, to Iraqis under detention, to Halliburton’s no
bid contracts, is the direct result of U.S. intervention. The
so-called insurgents wouldn’t have anything to fight about if
their nation wasn’t occupied by foreign armies.
Not to be outdone with foolish thinking,
the losers in the making have even come up with a foolish name
for themselves: national
security Democrats. Perhaps they think it will have the same
success as “compassionate conservative.” At any rate, the national
security Democrats have a strategy that amounts to being a poor
man’s Republican. They all think that the invasion of Iraq was
a good idea. They won’t say so, but they maintain that Saddam
had to go and the absence of WMD was an intelligence problem
and not an outright lie. “They say that the absence of weapons
of mass destruction was more a failure of intelligence than a
matter of outright deception by the Administration,” wrote Jeffrey
Goldberg of the “national security Democrats” in the March
14 issue of The New Yorker.
It is hard to imagine. A political party catches its lying opposition
red handed and refuses to use the evidence. How pathetic.
In 2008 you can celebrate a February 29th
birthday, or watch beach volleyball at the Olympics. Do whatever
you like, but don’t
get caught up in another year long trail of tears to November.
Unless a lot changes between now and then, the national security
Democrats will be blaming Michael Moore after their concession
speech on November 5th.
Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly
in . Ms.
Kimberley is a freelance writer living in New York City. She
can be reached via e-Mail at [email protected].
You can read more of Ms. Kimberley's writings at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/