As Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania pointed out, the DNC insisted on nominating the weaker candidate. Aside from the obvious consequence of making the election harder to win, what do you think are some of the short and long term consequences of such an action to the Democratic Party going forward?
Harder to win? Try impossible to win. One candidate ‘landslided’ the other in 13 of the biggest states in the country, not just won, but won by landslide margins and they sent out the loser. They deserve to lose and lose big. The short term consequences are short term pain for long term gain because a massive Obama defeat will get rid of Dean, Pelosi, Brazile and the Obama wing of the party and get it on the right track again.
The DNC is using various scare tactics to get everyone to fall in line. What is your response to their favorite ploys?
a) McCain as neocon?
As rated by conservative groups, McCain has the worst conservative voting record of any Republican member of Congress which is one reason Rush Limbaugh hates him. I’m going to write a post specifically addressing all of this because it’s so ludicrous.
b) Threats to reverse Roe v. Wade?
As for Roe v. Wade, it’s designed to scare people who are ignorant of the law, the limits on the power of the executive [branch] and how the legal system works. It’s virtually a done deal that Roe v. Wade will never get reversed in a McCain presidency and if you want proof, no Presidents were more opposed to Roe v. Wade than Bush and Reagan and nothing happened in 16 years of both administrations and for logical reasons. It won’t happen under a McCain administration either.
c) Conservative SCOTUS appointments?
Appointing judges is a crap shoot. Look at David Souter. Besides, even conservative judges respect court precedent and only in extreme and compelling circumstances are willing to overturn long-standing decisions and it hardly ever happens and it wouldn’t with Roe v. Wade. There is a big difference between conservatives WANTING it to be overturned and a court doing just that, assuming you could even find a case where someone with the standing to bring a law suit would do it.
d) What about the DNC and media pushing that if one does not vote for Senator Obama, one must be racist? How effective is this tactic?
Martin Luther King said he dreamed of a day when a person would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That day has obviously not arrived for Obama, his campaign and those in the DNC, who think making an issue of race and using it to try and intimidate weak minded people is the way to win the election.
Any objective person would come to the conclusion, based on everything known, that Obama doesn’t have the character, courage or the conviction even to be an effective Senator much less President. Using accusations of racism to try and intimidate people into voting for an unqualified candidate will backfire among everyone who sees through it and resents it.
That doesn’t include patronizing knee-jerk liberals such as Keith Olbermann and others like him; the kind of patronizing pseudo-liberals that Lenny Bruce made fun of in the early 60’s, who want to show how un-racist they are by drumming up support for someone with the ethics of a dishonest used car salesman.
But it’s a good reason the polls can’t be trusted. When Obama and his minions try and use the race card to intimidate people, those who do feel intimidated will say one thing but will do another. The more they do it, the more they alienate the people they are trying to win over, so the tactic of trying to get people to prove they are not racists by voting for him, like taking some kind of loyalty oath, smacks of racial McCarthyism, and while it might be successful with some, most people will reject it.
