# John Danforth Bitch-Slaps Republicans **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2005, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046 "2005-03-31T04:24:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/61 "2005-04-04T02:27:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So what you’re really saying is … nor should it be. Think a minute here **BG**. It may become hard to distinguish you from the one you’re arguing with. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/62 "2005-04-04T03:14:34Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > Think a minute here **BG**. > It may become hard to distinguish you from the one you’re arguing with. Well, I know I said that the Dems, to win the red states, need to shift to economic populism and social conservatism – but not **that** conservative! Miller is a fossil from the days of the racist Southern Democrats, and Lieberman . . . I can’t really see what distinguishes him from a Republican at all. Not that that kind of pol is necessarily what **lekatt** meant by “a candidate the people can trust,” I was just speculating. He/she seems to be complaining about the party’s social liberalism. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/63 "2005-04-04T03:24:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So what you’re really saying is that you don’t really know whether the people support the Republican leaders’ actions in these matters, and you doubt anyone does know. > > Like who? Somebody more socially conservative than Clinton, Gore or Kerry? Or just somebody more honest? (Gore’s and Kerry’s honesty was very unfairly disparaged in their respective presidential bids. For instance, Gore never claimed to have “invented the Internet.” He did, as a senator, sponsor “legislation which called for the creation of a new federal research center for educational computing to support an “information systems highway”.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al\_Gore#Vice\_Presidency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Vice_Presidency)) > > Whoever gets the Dem nomination in 2008, I guarantee you it’s not going to be a Joe Lieberman or a Zell Miller, nor should it be. What I am really saying is what I posted. The candidate the Dems put up next time? Who knows? I don’t believe that individual is available at present. ---
**Author:** ![drhess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@drhess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drhess)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/64 "2005-04-04T03:36:48Z")
Couple of thoughts: 1. There’s bound to be an election soon where some candidate just plain screwsup or a historical event makes a major difference. At least, I hope…I can’t stand seeing close elections like this…esp when the candidates are so far apart…blame the election system…support “approval voting” (google it or search on here). 2. Bush II won in 2004 due, it seems, to the change in the married women vote…or at least they were the bellweather. I can’t see security issues still dominating in the same way in 2008. Besides, 2008 might be Clinton vs Dole. Cat fight! ---
**Author:** ![drhess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@drhess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drhess)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/65 "2005-04-04T03:43:03Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I have been a Democrat most all my life, I voted democrat in the last two presidential elections even though I was not pleased with the demo candidate. > > The public are 70% against gay marriage, after the “rest of the story” about Terri Schiavo’s death by starvation, and family feud, came out in the news, every one I talked to thought it was barbaric and unfair to Terri’s family, but there was no later polling, and as for stem cell research, I don’t know, but I doubt it will amount to anything. There has been so much misinformation about Scientific research I don’t know who or what to believe. They said cloning was successful, but it never produced a clone like the original. The clones were sickly, overweight and died or had to be put down. > > If the Liberals want to get back into the main stream thought of America they will have to come up with a candidate the people can trust. Man, not sure where to start on this. 1. 70%? Go look at the ballot initiatives…and ask Cheney on gay marriage-lite. 2. All polls I saw on Gallup showed people against the Repubs on this one. Everyone you talked to doesn’t seem to be mainstream America. 3. Clones? Stem cells? Relation to this thread? 4. The election was close, no reason they need to change much…except the quality and validity of the electoral process. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/66 "2005-04-04T19:09:06Z")
Well back to the OP Republicans won with the Religious Right agenda on their side… now that the elections are done… there is no need to have them aboard. The GOP valued being in power more than what alliances they were making. Danforth is just starting the fight for the GOP… eventually they will make some kind of peace in new terms. They won’t split because no one wants to be in the “loser” party. Its an adjustment of who is in control… and who calls the shots for the next wanna be president. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/67 "2005-04-04T19:58:08Z")
Both parties are going through their periodic periods of post-electoral introspection. Nothing surprising - this happens all of the time. I respect John Danforth, and will give him a thoughtful listen anytime he wants to speak up. I won’t always agree with him, but that’s a natural thing. Meantime, there is a strenuous debate on the other side of the fence, and I think the crisis is far deeper there. The Democrats are losing elections, not winning them like the Republicans. They’re also losing members by comparison. Their moderate voices, analogous to Danforth, would be Al From and Bruce Reed, [who just bitch-slapped their party’s left wing.](http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=253206) > [@](#): > > Since Roosevelt, only two Democratic candidates in 15 elections – Johnson in 1964 and Carter in 1976 – have won a majority of the popular vote for president. In that six-decade period, only one Democrat – Clinton in 1992 and 1996 – has won election and re-election to the White House. > > If we’re going to improve on that track record, we need to discard failed strategies, not return to them. > > For example, it’s a delusion to think that if we just turned out our voters, we could win national elections. The 2004 election should have dispelled that myth, once and for all. With an unprecedented effort to get out our vote, Democrats far exceeded all expectations – and we still lost. Next time, we need to mount an unprecedented effort in persuasion, not just turnout. A party that has averaged 44.5 percent of the vote in the last 10 presidential elections and has only won a majority of the popular vote for president twice in six decades needs to start winning over some of the voters it’s losing. > > The argument about base versus swing voters is the longest running false choice in Washington. We simply need both to win. If we only win our base vote, we’ll lose every time. If our base doesn’t come out to vote in large numbers, we won’t win, even if we do well with swing voters. But if we offer a clear, progressive approach for tackling the big challenges facing America, we’ll do well every time, and so will the country. > > Democrats like to believe that we have the right message and our problem is one of communication – of getting our message out more effectively. The Republicans, we like to argue, win with an inferior message, because they’re better at getting it out. But after losing two presidential and three congressional elections in a row – all of which Democrats thought they would win – maybe it’s time to think hard about what we say, not just how loudly we say it. > > Finally, Democrats like to feel that if we just pull together and sharpen our differences with the Republicans, we’ll win. We’re all for Democrats standing our ground to defend what we believe in – and no one has opposed President Bush’s corporate conservatism more sharply than we have. But at the same time, we couldn’t disagree more with those in our party who are so green with Karl Rove envy that they want to try to out-smashmouth the Republicans. If Democrats want to make a lasting difference in American life, we have to define ourselves by what we’re for, not simply what we’re against. > > Let’s not kid ourselves: Americans didn’t have any trouble telling the difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush. The trouble they had was figuring out what our side stood for. > > We faced a similar problem after the 1988 election. Then, as now, many Democrats argued that the party’s troubles were all about mechanics – that we had a communications problem, a turnout problem. Clinton realized that all those troubles would take care of themselves as soon as he solved the root one – Democrats’ vision problem. > > A recent Democracy Corps survey found that twice as many voters say Republicans know what they stand for. The two biggest Democratic weaknesses identified in the survey – support for gay marriage and offering no strong direction for the country – bracket the party’s twin problems: Voters don’t know what we stand for, and have grave doubts about what they think we stand for. > > Shoring up our weaknesses will not come without real debate – even real fights over national security and domestic priorities. We should not shy away from them. It’s far less important that Democrats come together now than on Election Day. And we are far more likely to be together on Election Day if we battle out our differences now – so we can decide the direction of our party and rally an actual majority of the voters around the choices we make. > > If we want voters, especially those in America’s heartland, to take a new look at the Democratic Party, we must have the courage to take on the great challenges of our time: making America safe; building an opportunity society; standing up for core values of responsibility and family; and reforming a political system that is broken and corrupt. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/68 "2005-04-04T20:25:55Z")
That entire document can be summed up as “we’re losing on ideological grounds”. Well duh. I would argue the solution isn’t to become Pubbie Light (as the document seems to suggest, thought there’s such a paucity of specifics I don’t think it ranks as a “bitchslap”), but to convince people that tax cuts won’t necessarily usher in a New Golden Age overnight, and that allowing personal choice to rule on social issues like gay rights and abortion won’t precipitate the utter collapse of Western Culture. Also, it might help to convey to people the notion that dropping lot of bombs, while impressive, does not guarantee American security, or our success in a world economy. If the Democrats can’t even hold on to such a basic ideological stance, there’s little point in distinguishing themselves as a separate party. No, I disagree with that document entirely. They’ve got to stand firm on those issues, clearly articulate those viewpoints, and be prepared to lose fighting the good fight. Poll-driven compromise doesn’t exactly translate to visionary clarity, as John Kerry demonstrated with pathetic applomb. The fact remains, it was a pretty close election, with a record turnout. What if people actually knew what the Democrats stood for? Would they have triumphed, or suffered even greater defeat? I don’t know myself, but becoming even more indistinguishable surely can’t be a formula for future progress. To me it seems like a quest for irrelevance. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/69 "2005-04-04T21:48:25Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > BMeantime, there is a strenuous debate on the other side of the fence, and I think the crisis is far deeper there. The Democrats are losing elections, not winning them like the Republicans. They’re also losing members by comparison. > > Their moderate voices, analogous to Danforth, would be Al From and Bruce Reed, [who just bitch-slapped their party’s left wing.](http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=253206) Dead horse alert! Without going into detail, I see From and Reed do two things: (1) (correctly, IMHO) identify the party’s biggest problem as being that voters don’t know what Dems stand for, and (2) hold up Carter and Clinton as examples. I would submit that neither man, as President, left office having clarified, for the benefit of his succesors, the question of just what Democrats were for. I’m _still_ pissed at Clinton over that. It’s the one big thing he _could_ have done with his second term, both before and after The Year Of Monica: to use his bully pulpit to sharpen a vision of his party, its core ideals, and how they should translate into specific action. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/70 "2005-04-04T22:12:24Z")
The above looked like the Demeocrats are losing partly on ideological grounds, partly on lack of message/platform, partly not conservative enough or Republican enough. (?) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/71 "2005-04-05T00:12:29Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > What I am really saying is what I posted. But what you said in post 55 doesn’t jibe at all with what you said in post 58. > [@lekatt](#): > > The candidate the Dems put up next time? Who knows? I don’t believe that individual is available at present. I am **so** available! I’ll drop everything! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/72 "2005-04-05T14:42:34Z")
Lots of people are thinking along these lines right now. [Check out this column by David Brooks in today’s NYT.](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/05brooks.html?) > [@](#): > > Conservatives have not triumphed because they have built a disciplined and efficient message machine. Conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly. As these factions have multiplied, more people have come to call themselves conservatives because they’ve found one faction to agree with. > > In the early days of National Review, many of the senior editors didn’t even speak to one another. Whittaker Chambers declared that the writings of Ayn Rand, a hero of the more libertarian right, reeked of fascism and the gas chambers. Rand called National Review “the worst and most dangerous magazine in America.” > > It’s been like that ever since - neocons arguing with theocons, the old right with the new right, internationalists versus isolationists, supply siders versus fiscal conservatives. The major conservative magazines - The Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, The American Conservative, The National Interest, Commentary - agree on almost nothing. > > …Liberals have not had a comparable public philosophy debate. A year ago I called the head of a prominent liberal think tank to ask him who his favorite philosopher was. If I’d asked about health care, he could have given me four hours of brilliant conversation, but on this subject he stumbled and said he’d call me back. He never did. > > Liberals are less conscious of public philosophy because modern liberalism was formed in government, not away from it. In addition, liberal theorists are more influenced by post-modernism, multiculturalism, relativism, value pluralism and all the other influences that dissuade one from relying heavily on dead white guys. > > As a result, liberals are good at talking about rights, but not as good at talking about a universal order. Echoes of this were seen in the brilliant convention speech given by The Terminator, where he gave a laundry list of reasons people could identify with the Republican Party. The Democrats, meanwhile, seem to want at times to chase away the unorthodox. A lot of people look at the stresses and strains in the Republican Party and wait or hope for a collapse, not understanding that they are the natural result of a political movement that has quickly grown in popularity and power inside of a generation. Similar fault lines were seen in a Democratic coalition in the mid-20th century that dominated American political life pretty much completely. All in all, these are problems I want to have. Orthodoxy only works in small groups, and small groups tend to be marginal players in this system. I want no part of that. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046/73 "2005-04-05T17:29:23Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > [Check out this column by David Brooks in today’s NYT.](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/05brooks.html?) Why on earth would I want to read David Brooks? Been there, done that, the man’s an idiot. > [@Bobo](#): > > The major conservative magazines - The Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, The American Conservative, The National Interest, Commentary - agree on almost nothing. While I’m vaguely curious as to which of those magazines were upset that GWB won renomination last year, or which opposed Bush’s tax cuts, I would argue that the divisions - such as they are - that they represent amongst the conservative intelligentsia are largely invisible to the country at large. When the Democrats were in the majority, it was rare for them to be united about anything - in Congress, where it counts. That’s why Clinton wasn’t able to pass his health care proposal, and why Carter didn’t leave much of a footprint at all. Compare that with the GOP’s essentially united front on pretty much anything important that’s been voted on in Congress - most recently, the bankruptcy bill in the Senate (0 GOP defectors out of 55). And even though Social Security may never make it to a floor vote, what’s happened when any GOP figure in Congress has said a discouraging word? They’ve been taken aside, and within a few days, retracted their comments completely. (Hastert most recently.) It’s almost Maoist; you’d expect the offenders to have to spend some time at a May 4 farm before resuming their Congressional terms. People like The Governator are allowed only in places where the conservatism of DeLay and Trent Lott hasn’t a prayer of winning. Allowance of such deviationism is purely a tactical device for the GOP. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The Democrats, meanwhile, seem to want at times to chase away the unorthodox. Well, the DLC types want to chase away Michael Moore and MoveOn, so you do have a point here. > [@](#): > > Orthodoxy only works in small groups, and small groups tend to be marginal players in this system. It’s worked for the Congressional majority for a decade now. They may _be_ a small group, but they _represent_ a very large one. > [@](#): > > I want no part of that. I think you want to comfort yourself with the illusion of GOP diversity that disappears completely when the rubber meets the road. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-danforth-bitch-slaps-republicans/297046.md?page=3)