The Kerry Spot is still being published on National Review Online. It is less about Kerry and more about Democratic angst.
FORGET THIS 'NEW CAMPAIGN STRATEGY' STUFF
As we read the campaign post-mortems, the autopsies of the Kerry campaign, the wrap-up pieces, we're hearing a lot about how Democrats need a new way to campaign in 2008. They need a southerner, they need a centrist, they need this, that, etc.
My friends, 2008 is a long way away.
The Democratic party doesn't need a campaigning strategy until they are preparing for the 2006 midterm elections. Right now, they need a governing strategy. They have been the obstructionist party since Bush took office, and we see what that has gotten them.
I think the first thing they ought to do is become the "Ideas Party", and that means introducing lots of legislation, and not the usual party fare - tax hikes, minimum wage hikes, prescription drugs from Canada, yadda yadda yadda.
We learned from Bush's first term that he will sign any piece of legislation that seems popular enough, whether conservatives like it or not. Big farm bill? Signed. McCain-Feingold? Signed. Homeland Security? Nevermind that it was Lieberman's idea, Bush took the ball and ran with it.
Democrats have been running on the leftovers of the Clinton agenda for a long time, and their engines are sputtering. They ought to take all of Kerry's ideas - increasing the military by 40,000, doubling special forces, the nutty Department of Wellness - and throw it against the legislative wall and see what sticks. Find what few moderate Republicans remain and see what they're willing to sign on to. Voters will notice if the Democrats are the ones coming up with the good ideas, even if a Republican Congress and President keep passing those laws.
The second thing they need to do is to jettison their cultural elitism. Hank Sheinkopf puts this well in Slate:
The greatest political scientist and student of American politics in the 20th century, V.O. Key, in his last book, The Responsible Electorate, appeared to chide and challenge the public-opinion persuaders when he wrote that voters respond to the information they are given. They don't want Republicrats. They want economic Democrats as strong on defense as Harry Truman and FDR. They don't want confabs. They want to talk to real people about real issues. Mostly they want their values respected, and they don't want to be told they're dumb, that people from the East are just so much smarter.
So, dump the croissants and spend some time at a Veterans of Foreign Wars hall. Go to the local Wal-Mart, not to Starbucks. The Democrats might learn a lot more and then begin to understand the long road to winning this republic back.
WE MAY NOT HAVE SEEN THE LAST OF HIM
Well, the world may still need the Kerry Spot in the future. From the Boston Globe today:
While Senator John F. Kerry is "profoundly disappointed" with losing his presidential race last week, it is "conceivable" he will run again in four years, his brother and political confidant, Cameron F. Kerry, said yesterday.
Asked whether that might include another run for president, the younger brother replied: "That's conceivable. . . . I don't know why that [last week's loss] should necessarily be it. I think it's too early to assess. But I think that he is going to continue to fight on for the values, ideals, and issues this campaign is about." …
Former aides said they have received conflicting answers about whether he might wage another campaign. One, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Kerry told a top campaign official he could not envision another run. Yet that same adviser attended a farewell party for Kerry's staff Saturday night in Washington and said Kerry told the crowd, "There's always another four years."
The remark triggered an eruption of cheers.
I wonder how people will react to this news in Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's office.
Would the Democrats be stupid enough to run Kerry again? Well, they ran Adlai Stevenson in '52 & '56. But the tiumes are different, aren't they?
WHO IS TAKING THIS ELECTION THE HARDEST?
Instapundit reports that in a post-Election Day appearance, Maureen Dowd "looks absolutely terrible. It's like she's aged ten years since I last saw her. Her manner is subdued, and bitter, too. I guess that explains her post-election writing. It's striking to see a pundit taking the election so hard — most actual Democratic politicians seem to be maintaining more personal distance."
Well, really, who had more on the line in this campaign? A professional politician has ups and downs in his or her career; you win some races, and you lose some. But the press bet the house against Bush this year. Democrats may have recognized Kerry's faults and seen his vulnerabilities, but many members of the press were the "true believers" of this campaign.
The fun question will be whether members of the press learn from this experience and either A) are more open in acknowledging their liberal leanings and inability to comprehend life in the red states or B) realize they have gone too far and start trying to be more objective again. I think most folks on the right would be happy with either scenario - admitting their political leanings up front, or trying to give conservatives a fair shake. Just stop pretending to be fair or balanced while acting like the media wing of the DNC.
The Kerry Spot on National Review Online
No comments:
Post a Comment