26 Comments

1. mrp:

Roger -

The Clintons NEVER lost their control of the party. Hillary, not John Kerry, is the party’s guiding star.

I figured Kerry’s campaign was doomed when his people ever-so-gently tried to ease out DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe in March-May 2004 for a takeover of the party (this has been the traditional – and pragmatic – right of every presumptive nominee). The Clintonistas flicked them off like bugs.

John Kerry never had full control of the Democratic Party’s apparatus. He was a party client, not the leader.

Nov 3, 2004 - 10:49 am 2. MeTooThen:

Roger,

Soul searching?

Hardly.

The Democrats must, must change their behavior.

BusHitler!

Halliburton!

No Blood for Oil!

The Democrats must suspend their illusion of the superiority of their ideas and ideals and learn to persuade the electoral Center why those ideas and ideals are, in fact, to be preferred over those of the Republicans.

It is not enough to be lectured to by “stars” of the film and music industry, or be told by polemicists (propogandists) that, “Americans are the stupidest people in the world.”

Lastly, they must listen to the concerns of their constituency, that Liberty matters, that we believe we are at war, and we demand to know how they intend to protect us.

No, telling us there is “a plan” is not sufficient.

At least William Jefferson Clinton new how to seduce the electorate (he is a true master of seduction).

And no, Hillary ain’t no Bill.

As a life-long Democrat, I voted a straight Republican ticket this year.

I hope my party got the message.

Nov 3, 2004 - 10:53 am 3. RogerA:

Seems to me the Clintons played this election just about right to keep Hillary in contention for 08. Re the dems doing any soul searching: I spent some time looking at Kevin Drum’s site http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005077.php Based on the comments I say there, there isnt too much hope for the party with those moonbats as activistis. And we really do need I dynamic two party system IMHO. I honestly do wish the democrats luck in reforming the party, because the nation needs it.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:07 am 4. Knucklehead:

I’m watching the concession speech. I guess I’m not gonna get the sobbing on his knees begging forgiveness from Vietnam (and now Iraq) veterans that I so wished for, am I.

I did learn from listening to Edwards, however, how lucky GWB was that none of the folks who voted for him had to suffer through lines or stand in the rain like the Kedwards voters did. Geesh, guess we dodged that bullet, heh?

I’m glad he’s learned to love the American people (or at least that portion who showed up at his rallies), but if that loon ever tries to wrap me in his seditious arms I’m gonna kick him in the balls.

OK, time for some of that “reaching out” and uniting. I’ll join the Senator in thanking his campaign staff. Thanks!

Nice that he thanks the kids for their contributions – is he gonna thank Soros? OK, I’ll stop. Sory for failing to be gracious.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:10 am 5. Knucklehead:

OMG! “Your stories are part of me now.” Magic hats for everyone!

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:11 am 6. Ed Poinsett:

Kerry’s inability to budge McAwful just underscores his lack of leadership abilities. I agree that the Clinton’s got their party back though it was never far from their grasp. The question is will they reform it or will McAwful, Begala, Carville, Joe Lockhart, Larry O’Donnell, etc. pick it up and run it further into the ground?

I’m biased and vote straight republican, but even I recognize the need for a loyal opposition party. We need the Democrats to come back, but without the vile and bilious rhetoric. If, as the dems claim, Bush is no uniter, then they must become uniters if that is what we need. But to do so they have a long way out of the cellar to restablish credibility with the general populace.

Bush’s victory was not just about Iraq and the WoT. It was driven to some degree by the silent majority’s pleas for civil discourse.

I’m skeptical, but will remain hopeful.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:12 am 7. TmjUtah:

Roger-

Do you still think I channel Hunter S. Thompson’s “Nixon” response when anyone mentions the Clintons…?

I am listening to the concession speeches. I was not impressed by Edwards. He came across as throwing fertilizer on the old victims’ garden plot.

Kerry…Kerry sounds more unifying. Sounds like it, at least. I appreciate his gesture but I hesitate to believe him. This last half of his speech sounds more like filler; the words you expect any concession to contain. His salutation to America’s greatness and goodness jars with Edward’s faux populist rhetoric of just a few minutes before.

I do grant him the recognition that he fought as hard as he knew how and by the rules he grew up with through his years in life, both public and private. He lost but it was not for want of trying. Not by a long chalk.

Amen. No lawyers. We’ve had our revolution again – long live the revolution!

And now to work.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:18 am 8. Bostonian:

Hey Roger, let’s be clear. Clinton was impeached for lying to the Senate, not for sexual misconduct. He didn’t need to lie to the Senate. He did it for his personal convenience, and that’s why he deserved the impeachment, IMHO.

He should have told everyone to mind their own damned business. (Note to self: if ever in high office and tempted to conduct self badly, stonewall rather than lie.)

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:30 am 9. Hogarth:

My laugh out loud moment:

Edwards: “I fought alongside this man for four months.”

Yeah, that’s about par for Kerry.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:31 am 10. WichitaBoy:

Now that the government can safely return to the task of fighting the terrorists at its home bases on our terms and our timetable, the body politic can return to fixing up things here at home. This involves two things: fixing the MSM and fixing the Democratic party. The recent behavior of the MSM has been outrageous and egregious. They have worked very hard to elect an awful candidate and they have lost. In my view the MSM will be gradually but inexorably “fixed” by the rise of the blogs.

The Democratic party is another matter. Poking around the county-by-county results across the land I would say that the Kerry vote consisted of two pieces: inner-city blacks, particularly in the most blighted areas, and urban sophisticates, particularly in New York, San Francisco, and Boston. These two groups aren’t really a natural blend; they are more a continuation of the momentum started by FDR. But FDR also included Southerners in his coalition and the Democrats have completely abandoned that base–in fact, they seem to hate them. Bush and the Republicans are making sufficient progress in the black community now to indicate that that base may too soon be lost to the Democrats if they’re not careful.

There is an interactive nature to the lure of the Democratic party for the urban sophisticates. Support for the Democrats, particularly the socialists among them, is a priori proof that one is sophisticated, that one is smart, and this is particularly important within academia. Being a Democrat has become the relevant shibboleth for many, the definitive proof that one is “cool” and one is smart. This partly explains the attraction for the MSM talking heads, who long to be much more than pretty faces reading the news.

The ad hoc combination of urban sophisticates and would-be sophisticates with those wanting a statist handout is a hollow party utterly without a core. The Democrats are now at a crossroads: they can become a big-tent party by relenting a bit on their social agenda or they can become more a party of open and obvious pacifist Euro-socialists. Or, they can continue to try to fudge the issue and paper over the unbridgeable differences there. That’s almost certainly the route the Clintons will choose.

The problem is that the party as currently constituted doesn’t really make sense and most of the true believers come from the urban sophisticate wing, leading the party inexorably to be pacifist and defeatist, leaving the pro-military stance as a de facto Republican monopoly. This will make it very difficult to become the big-tent party they really need to become for the health of the Republic.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:46 am 11. Terrye:

Well the speeches from the Dems are done and the president will be on soon.

So far no riots. No American cities in ruins, and as far as I know Alec Baldwin is still here.

I am glad I took the week off so I can see this stuff.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:49 am 12. Terrye:

Wichita Boy:

The Democrats will have to get past their regional snobbery if they are to survive.

It is an obnoxious quality.Elitist to the core and Amerricans do not like that.

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:54 am 13. Bostonian:

I’d like to have a choice between Libertarians and Republicans.

Ain’t gonna happen, though. We’ve got way too many believers in Government as a fixer of problems (despite the evidence of all of human history).

Nov 3, 2004 - 11:59 am 14. jedrury:

Is there a platitude or banality that John Edwards has not wrapped his tongue around ?

Nov 3, 2004 - 12:00 pm 15. jerry:

I think itís a bit too earlier to anoint HRC as the 2008 nominee. Right now she is just a placeholder. I also donít think that the Democratic Party is Clintonís anymore. Certainly the DNC staff and secretariat is his today but they are like Germans at war…1-0-2. The only election they won was 1996 against Bob Dole and that was beating the French in 1870. The vaunted Clinton political machine lost the election in 1992. Ross Perot defeated Bush 41, Clintonís ascension to the Presidency was just a byproduct of that event. And of course, the Clinton machine failed to get Gore elected.

If HRC wants the nomination 4 years from now she will have to kowtow to the moveon.org/Michael Moore set just like any other old face.. She is actually at a disadvantage because a new face like Jack Reid (RI) can walk in and build a new constituency for moderation within the Democratic Party electorate. The Clintonís canít reform the party because they have a parasitic relationship to the party. The DNC is merely a vehicle to achieve their ambitions. They have no hard and fixed political core.

Hereís my first political forecast for 2008. The Democrat nominee will be someone you havenít heard about yet.

Nov 3, 2004 - 12:29 pm 16. Knucklehead:

Bostonian,

Just tossing some stuff out. I never get too far down the libertarian trail without seeing anarchy out there like some Bigfoot stalking through the woods – I don’t why it seems dangerous if one were to get too close but somehow it seems obvious.

I’ve started pondering what the role of government is beyond internal security (the highly restricted monopoly on force that is necessary for contracts and private property to function) and external relations and security.

I haven’t traveled much down this path yet, but I’m beginning to wonder what role the government plays in “utilities”. Consider things like the TVA to bring electricity to rural areas before it was economically viable for private corporations to do so, regulated monopolies such as AT&T once was, etc. But don’t get hung up on utilities that are long since matured and privatized – think sorta DARPA like futuristic stuff (assume Al Gore won’t always be with us to invent what we need when we need it). Are there “utilities” in our 21st century society that might be a reasonable realm for government development or administration? In particular I’m wondering about hospitals and some vague notion of general healthcare clinics for basic stuff. If we expect government to do things like roads, bridges, harbors, and airports and the like, why not some basic healthcare infrastructure.

Another area I’m pondering is if government can or should have some sort of “co-op” role for some things. Think insurance – life, medical, retirement, unemployment, disability, etc. We’ve got some pretty good mathematicians here at Roger’s Place. In terms of actuarial kinda analysis, wouldn’t we be able to figure out how to “insure” the entire populace for healthcare costs? In an overall “national” sense we pretty much know how much of what sort of care we need and could predict with reasonable accuracy what the costs would be, don’t we?

I’m not advocating anything, just wondering what are the legitmate roles of federal and state governments as we cruise on into the 21st century.

Nov 3, 2004 - 12:38 pm 17. Jim E:

“Bill’s by-pass may have been a blessing in disguise in that regard.”

For what its worth, I don’t quite buy the ‘blessing” idea.

I’ve had a hard time believing that a former President suddenly discovers 90% blockage like that. call me suspicious, but I’ve thought since August that the more likely scenario is that he knew of the blockage, and planned the required operation for after the convention. Recovers in just enough time to help out JK campaign.

Again, he had it both ways.

Nov 3, 2004 - 12:45 pm 18. Darleen:

I heard Chris Matthews say to Katie Couric this morning in trying to explain Kerry’s loss (since us pro-GW voters just don’t understand where our “real” interest lies, just so caught up in “cultural” stuff)

“I think this is like India and Pakistan. We really are two countries.”

:::::sigh:::::

You’d think after the spanking, the Dems just might look AT THEMSELVES for once…

Nov 3, 2004 - 1:03 pm 19. Darleen:

Oh… I want to add one California gloat

Prop 66 WAS DEFEATED!! Woohoo!

Nov 3, 2004 - 1:04 pm 20. Cybrludite:

As I commented over on Kim DuToit’s forums:

My take on ‘08:

Hillary will run, but her negatives are way too high. If the Donks are serious about getting back in the White House, they’ll run Obama. Best Republican defense against this? Get on the ball right away & build up Rice as the Heir Apparent and follow through with it. Do it long before the Dems have settled on Obama so it looks like the Donks are playing “me too!”. I’d go one further, and run Bobby Jindal as her veep so as to set up for 2016. He’ll help shore up the bible-thumper base as well.

Nov 3, 2004 - 2:34 pm 21. Bostonian:

Knuck,

I’m no economist, but it seems to me that when government gets involved, it adds to the total cost.

The claim is often put forth that for really large-scale stuff, you just need the government, but hey, look at cell phones. They don’t work without towers, and towers are expensive to put up, and hey, it all happened without the government. (Or maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.)

The Libertarian party seems to attract anarchists, I’ll agree. I’m more of a Hayekian myself.

***

On health care, I’m personally convinced that health insurance is part of the problem, not part of the solution. For any given cohort, it’s not that hard to figure out how much routine costs to expect and then mark that up. In order to stay in business, if an insurance company is covering routine costs, it has to charge more than those costs. Therefore, you the consumer are paying more than you would otherwise (except that your employer is paying part of it for you rather than giving you that cash).

What happens then is the costs of health care are hidden to everyone, and you’re paying for a whole lot of people to process pieces of paper with your name on them.

I think it’d be smarter to have catastrophic-only coverage. It would have to cost less allover, and it would expose all the routine costs to the bright glare of the market place.

Nov 3, 2004 - 3:40 pm 22. Ric Locke:

One thing to think about vis-a-vis the politcal future.

Ask your doctor, or look around. There’s a known effect for heart bypasses: a small but significant reduction in intelligence afterwards. It’s usually not a big deal, and considered better than the alternative, but it’s also not discussed much, for obvious reasons.

Bill Clinton is one of the brightest people around. Hilary can, when she isn’t paying attention to what she’s saying, be almost as abrasive as Teresa. Without Bill to break trail, so to speak, I don’t think Hilary will get farther than Senator — and she might not even hold on to that. What will be the result of a small but noticeable reduction in Bill’s capability to Plot?

Regards,

Ric Locke

Nov 3, 2004 - 4:02 pm 23. Doug:

Bill Clinton did a lot of good things as president, I don’t deny it. But he has been death for his party. Look at the reality. He took office in 1992. Two years later for the first time in forty years, Republicans controlled Congress. Came 1996, Clinton presents as a centrist who can work with the Republicans, he is re-elected together with his Republican Congress. In 2000, Clinton’s VP cannot win the White House. Republicans retain Congress. 2002, In the aftermath of 9/11, Republicans INCREASE hold on COngress. Clinton backed candidates lose nationwide. 2004, Bush is re-elected with a majority vote, Republicans strengthen stranglehold on Congress. Clinton backed candidates lose across the nation and Clinton fails to help Kerry to the White House. Somehow, this history seems to have passed the Democrats by. He reminds me of a story by John Cheever about a woman who appears to thrive on the sickness and misfortune of her boyfriends.

Nov 3, 2004 - 6:05 pm 24. Bostonian:

NAFTA was historic, though.

Between that & the blue dress, I know what I’d rather be remembered by.

Nov 3, 2004 - 6:21 pm 25. BeckyJ:

I do think Hillary will start a run for ‘08. I don’t know if she’ll make it past the primaries. As for Obama, he’ll be in his 4th year of his 1st Senate term. Not a good time to decide that you’re going to run for pres. Many will see it as an arrogant move by an inexperienced climber. Look at what happened to Edwards in the primaries (remember, he started this race as a candidate in his own right).

Regardless of who runs in 2008, it will be a fascinating election (says the political scientist geek). There hasn’t been a presidential election without an incumbent or presumed incumbent (VP) in 50 years. 2 wide open primaries ought to be fun to watch.

On the “day after” side of things, my colleagues were unsurprisingly quiet. Academics tend not to take political defeat of any kind well, so I was expecting some noise. But I think the shock of the turnaround after the afternoon’s (false) exit polls really messed with their heads. Oh well, I can bear it.

And Wichitaboy, I think I mentioned it last night, but I’m *not* going to be the advisor for the Young Republicans. I still have 4 years before tenure review, so I’m going back into my shell.

Nov 3, 2004 - 6:29 pm 26. richard mcenroe:

Jerry ó First published quote from the Democratic candidate for 2008:

“No! Don’t make me go out there! You can’t do this to me! I’m not going…!”

Nov 3, 2004 - 6:44 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: