Democratic Party on the Verge of Collapse By Trader_Jorge The past two days have provided two news stories that highlight the growing rift inside the Democratic Party – a rift which threatens to even further diminish what little power is left in the party after the devastating midterm elections. The mere threat of war has led to the highly controversial remarks of Representative Jim Moran (D - Virginia) and his public rebuke and leadership demotion by Nancy Pelosi. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/14/moran.remarks/index.html The mere threat of war has also led to a disastrous and humiliating showing at the presidential caucus in Iowa in which John Edwards, a leading candidate for the 2004 nomination, had to shout over a string of jeers just to finish his speech. The war issue is ripping apart the Democratic party. Once again, the Democrats have allowed their leftwing radical fringe to be the voice of the party – and once again the Democrats are in the severe minority amongst Americans on the issue of the day. The latest polls show that 71% of Americans support military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. Only 4% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein is completely complying with existing U.N. resolutions. A whopping 74% of Americans feel that the United States, not the United Nations should make the final decision on security matters for the United States. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html Despite these overwhelming majorities, John Kerry continues to lead in the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. This could have severe negative consequences on the Democrats’ ability to challenge President Bush in the 2004 elections – and if the war on terror continues to be the issue of the day 17 months from now, a Kerry nomination could lead to landslide victories for the G.O.P. next November. Recent history has shown support for the war to balloon as the conflict unfolds, as was the case during the Persian Gulf War. Leading Democrats were strongly in opposition to the Persian Gulf War until overwhelming military victory and 90% pro-war approval ratings forced the party to admit they were on the wrong side of the issue. History is repeating itself once again. Perhaps more importantly, the Moran remarks draw attention to the fact that Jews are now rethinking their political loyalties. The Jewish vote has been the bedrock of the Democratic party, providing significant financial support, as well as furthering the Democratic cause through their influence in Hollywood, print media, and television programming. With many Jews strongly in favor of military force to disarm Iraq, the issue threatens to steal the Democrats’ power base right out from under them. It could also swing New York’s important 33 electoral votes towards the Republicans in November 2004. This could have disastrous consequences for the Democrats. War is not the only issue going against the Democrats. With Venezuela, Iraq, low storage volumes and harsh winter weather driving the price of oil and natural gas to high levels, the issue of drilling for the over 7.7 BBOE (mean estimate – it could be as much as 11.8 BBOE) of reserves in ANWR has been gaining significant momentum in Congress. This represents the equivalent of 30 years of Saudi oil imports to America. Senate Republican leadership is now contemplating packaging the ANWR drilling issue in the budget approval process – a move which would thwart any Democratic attempt (John Kerry) at a filibuster. The third issue which threatens to go against the Democrats is the economic stimulus package. With Wall Street and the stock market firmly in favor of tax relief, expect the compromise which is eventually reached on the issue to be much closer to the Bush’s initial proposal. Once tax relief is enacted, expect the market to notch heavy gains. The final link to our continued economic recovery is a rise in equity valuations. This in turn will provide a “wealth-effect” stimulus to consumer demand, and will also provide firms in need of cash the opportunity to tap the equity capital markets. This in turn will lead to capital investment, productivity gains, and increased corporate profitability -- which will then spur greater employment figures. Democratic opposition to President Bush’s proposal is short-sighted and is an unfortunate attempt to impose the left wing’s social agenda of income redistribution and social safety nets on the rest of America. Their efforts will fail. The midterm elections were just the beginning of the collapse of the Democratic Party. The disarming of Saddam Hussein, energy policy, and economic policy threatens to further marginalize the Democratic Party’s influence and render their power inconsequential.
From 1937 to 39, the Republicans had sixteen, repeat SIXTEEN seats on the Senate. Their domestic policy was unpopular. Their foreign policy was even more hamfistedly handled by isolationists like Taft. If a party can rise up from that kind of wreckage, don't expect to see the democrats collapsing soon. The situation today is more like the period from 1944 to 60, during which the country, or at least the congress, was pretty evenly divided. ps. I do not think that the Dems could win the presidency in 04. But they have an excellent hand in 08 if they can go to Bush's RIGHT on foreign policy. I shall write about it soon.
But seriously, there once was a man named Bush who invaded Iraq and saw the economy tumble. He had tremendous numbers in the polls but something happened. No democrat wanted to be caught dead running against a man who couldn't lose. His name was George Bush, SR. Funny how things can change so quickly. History has a way of making you realize that politics are a flow. One period, one side is up, the next the other side is up. If the 2000 election told us nothing, it is that we are fairly evenly divided along ideological lines with the vast majority of people falling somewhere between the two extremes. No one party will likely ever dominate the political agenda for long periods of time again. It just doesn't work that way.
Doesn't "un-named Democrat" have a 48-44 lead over Bush if the elections were held today? Bush doesn't have a hope. The twit is finished.
Not really, because people have to at least show up to vote for the "un-named dem". As might be expected, a man without a name is usually not a big draw in politics. Seriously, people seem to forget that Presidents are elected with about 30 per cent support from all potential electorate. Although more Americans might be Democrats (always been since the Depression), their constituency has to hate Bush so much to vote for the likes of Kerry, Edwards or Dean. Or maybe the Rev. Sharpton can pull out some magic here, otherwise we are looking at a 60-40 election here. If that happens, don't expect too many electoral college votes outside of Massachusetts and California.
Good post Trader Jorge. Last election showed us that the Democrat's tent is not big enough for both honest Liberals like Ralph Nader, and amoral power hungry centrists like Clinton/Gore. The Democrats definitely have lost any kind of unifying identity, and they need to rebuild from the ground up. It is not enough for the Democrats to be the anti-Republican party. They will actually have to stand for something again to regain their previous glory.
Or Bush can continue to ignore the economy and then they won't have to stand for anything other than "with its comes to the economy, we are not BUSH".
Excellent, well thought-out post, T_J. The board needs more posts such as this. I cannot wait for the dividend tax cut to take effect. That will certainly be a nice helper to my portfolio.
Was this it, the 1000th post that eventually was put on hold? Haven't you told us the Democratic party was going down before? Well, we still don't believe you. Anyways, glad you are back *SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
I want to assure you that this is *not* the Masterpiece Post. While I would certainly consider this to be a Classic Post, the Masterpiece Post will be far more thought provoking and detailed. Thanks
I love Trader_Jorge, not because I follow the same political leanings that he does, but because I love seeing him get so many people upset. I have a feeling that he is sitting at his home computer, reading this BBS, and laughing his ass off.
Honestly, I don't like people like that. I checked out the message board here at A&M called Hobbes, man, there are some real jackasses there who love to just piss people off. I also noticed that people there post waaaaaaay too often. They had to restart it for this semester because the guy who ran it before went to study abroad, so the new guys set up a different program which meant everybody had to re-register. It didn't take long for some losers to hit over 3000 posts. Anyways, I like debate, and even though I don't think TJ would ever change his mind of certain topics, he presents a challenge and I like watching him and other well spoken/written and knowledgable posters go at it. Also, TJ's tone on some things makes me glad I lean the other way. Plus, I respect anybody who has his own fan club
finalsbound rollin' around downtown, y'all know the thing Brotha from DC up in here rep'sentin' the right-wing We conservatives are not all whites from the south, thank you very much.
Can presidents really do <i>anything</i> about the economy? The economy was on its way up when Clinton took office and on its way down when Clinton left office. Does that really mean anything? If presidents really could affect the economy then it would ALWAYS be good. Why would any president, from a political point of view, want or create a bad economy? I hate it when people try to lay blame or take credit for something completely out of their control (Dems and Rebubs alike). It just goes where it goes (the economy) and all politicians do is spin.
If the economy was going great, would you say "is Bush really responsible" if somebody gave him props for it???
