Good or Bad for the Jews

"Good or Bad for the Jews"

Many years ago, and for many years, I would travel to Morocco to visit uncles, cousins, and my paternal grandmother. Some lived in Tangiers;...

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Thinking About the DNC

As a political junkie I will spend way too many hours next week watching the DNC in North Carolina.

I  keep asking myself, "What are they going to talk about?" They really have got nothing. All they can do is try to rally the disparate groups that make up their base and hope that their turnout, combined with vote fraud a la Chicago, Nevada, and California,  will be enough to overcome what I see as a growing anti-Obama upsurge in the country.

The Dems main groups, of course, are lawyers, public sector workers, half-educated college students, African-Americans, part of the Hispanic community, secular Jews, and what Ann Coulter brilliantly called "stupid single women" who want the government to be their husband.  All of these groups, with the possible exception of some of the lawyers, are under pressure, worse off than they were four years ago, and not likely to turn out in the numbers seen in 2008.

The situation is dire for the Democrats. The convention can only be about one thing: hate. They have to generate irrational hate and fear, and trust that will motivate their deteriorating base to vote. We are already seeing signs that this is the turn the DNC will take. We see Los Angeles' disastrous Mayor Villaraigosa labeling the Republicans as a party fit for 1812 not 2012. He obviously doesn't know that in 1812 the Democrats' ancestors were the slave-holders; it was the GOP under Lincoln that ended slavery; the Democrats later became the party of the KKK, and white supremacist segregationists and remained that way for much of the 20th century. The Democrats blocked efforts in the 1930s to pass anti-lynch laws. It was, they seem to forget, a Republican President and a Republican chief justice who desegregated the schools. The Democrats are now the party of trying to help poor people stay poor.

So who have they got? Villaraigosa and Rahm Emanuel as sterling examples of how Democrats run major cities? Nancy Pelosi? A politician who doesn't even know what she is voting for? Maxine Waters? Barney Frank? Joe Biden? Sandra Fluke? Do they have anybody who sees women as more than just vaginas? Where is their Susana Martinez or Mia Love? Do they have anybody who sees African-Americans as something more than welfare recipients? Where is their Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Allen West, or Tim Scott? Anybody who sees Hispanics as something more than huddled masses waiting to be deported? Where is their Brian Sandoval, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio?

They've got nobody except Bill Clinton, who was President 20 years ago--yes, the same Bill Clinton who doesn't even want Obama to win for obvious reasons.  Oh yes, they also have President Obama--the man whose soaring rhetoric matches our soaring gas prices, national debt, and unemployment.

It must not be easy planning for the DNC.


  1. It's going to be tough for the RINO's to screw this one up. They will try, but this time they will fail.

  2. Note the DNC is going way Left and way nasty trying to excite their base.
    In the meantime Romney & Ryan have their base well in hand and are making sensible plays to the very few undecideds in the key swing States.

    1. After the Rule 12 change, especially the way in which it was done, I wouldn't be so sure the "their base [is] well in hand".

      This is going to affect the enthusiasm of state party organizations and many influential "political junkie" types; if the RNC was planning on the former being part of its revived Get Out The Vote effort (GOTV, which it skipped in 2010, probably costing us at least two Senators), that would be bad.

  3. Also, the new jobs report will come out the morning after Obama gives his big speech. Can't wait! Likely it will "fall" to 8.2 or 8.1% and the Dems will claim it's a huge accomplishment!

  4. Hard to see how it can fall when Obama just gave a 2 year amnesty AND working permits to some 3-5 million illegal aliens.
    By all accounting those millions should be tagged onto the unemployment rolls as soon as the paperwork is processed.

  5. What, exactly, has Big Bill Clinton done or said that makes it so clear that he doesn't want the O (as in 屙屎 in one tone or 儿in another) to win? It seems to me that both Clintons have rallied to the O in recent months.

    1. I can think of two reasons:

      To better position Hillary! for 2016.

      Because Obama has repudiated pretty much Clinton's entire and as these things go successful legacy (much like G. H. W. Bush did with Reagan). The Democratic Leadership Council is actually dead (the Clinton Foundation purchased their archives), the great welfare triangulation which saved his presidency and that convinced a lot of people that Democrats could be trusted in these sorts of things is progressively getting destroyed, any reputation for fiscal sanity has been trashed, etc. etc.

      In the long term, the only good thing about Obama for the party is Obamacare, if it can be saved, in which case it's game over for us. And no doubt it irks the Clintons that Obama did succeed there, although so maladroitly it's in severe danger of immediate repeal.

    2. Well, I still can't see Bill Clinton dropping a vote for Romney in the ballot box this November.

  6. "The Dems main groups, of course, are ..."

    In terms of their respective numbers and donations the littany includes the Dems main domestic groups. In terms of relative influence, however, journalists command the pinnacle of public persuasion.

  7. Oh, the Democrats have something in the way of ideas! The problem is they can't reveal their ideas and plans to the voters or they lose votes and elections.

    So what is Obama's plan for a second term? More of the same? That's not a winner now, is it?