Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Will The Democratic Party Survive Long Enough to Run a President in 2008?

As I mentioned before, I am thrilled that Oliver Stone is going to make the first major 9/11 movie. Stone has now opened his mouth and expressed his full-blown moonbattery. Bwahahahaha! This pied piper is leading the Democratic Party off a cliff!

9 comments:

Chesapeake Blue said...

Eh? Last I checked, Dean was leading the Democrats, and Oliver Stone was making entertaining, but not particularly factual, films. I'm just sayin' . . .

Jonathon said...

Wow, maybe this will open the door for a viable 3rd party candidate to run... wouldnt it be nice.

John said...

My point, Progressive Christian, is that popular Democratic movies like Fahrenheit 911 drove the Party further to the Left and alienated centrist and center-Left voters that otherwise would have voted for Kerry.

When the mainstream leadership of a Party endorses demented, paranoid fantasies, it tends to hurt, rather than help, said party. Given Stone's prediliction for conspiracy theories and his own statements about the War on Terror, one can guess that he might create a film which will have the same effect that Michael Moore's movie had on the 2004 election.

As for a third party candidacy, I've long given up hope on the Libertarian Party, even though I still carry a membership card and pay annual dues. Its leadership is determined to prevent its electoral success.

Gavin Richardson, however, should be old enough to run for President in the next election. What do you think of that possibility?

Jonathon said...

if he ran under the "neo-monastic" party i'd vote for him. shoot,he's already got the cool button.

gavin richardson said...

haha, i do have the cool button. if i ran under the neomonastic party then i'd get less votes that nader in the last election. do moderate republicans still get elected to office now?

Karasoth said...

Progressive Christian: When was the last entertaining Oliver Stone film... I can't remember myself

Chesapeake Blue said...

John, I doubt that there are many people who voted against Kerry because of Michael Moore. There are a lot of people who voted against Kerry who also hated Michael Moore. But somehow I do believe they would have voted for Mr. Bush anyway.

And where exactly are these oh-so-skittish center-left voters when Anne Coulter calls all liberals traitors? (Remember "Treason"). Somehow, Michael Moore scared them into Mr. Bush's camp, while Ms. Coulter, Mr. O'Rielly, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Hannity, and about 3,000 mouth-breathing conservative radio commentators didn't bother them a bit? IMHO, we can come up with better explanations for the 2004 election than "Michael Moore."

I was quite entertained by 'JFK.' I also liked "The Doors," which I think was one of his. And I thought Anthony Hopkins did a fine job in "Nixon."

John said...

John, I doubt that there are many people who voted against Kerry because of Michael Moore. There are a lot of people who voted against Kerry who also hated Michael Moore. But somehow I do believe they would have voted for Mr. Bush anyway.


I disagree. I know of center-left people who were deeply offended by the Democratic Party's embrace of Michael Moore -- particularly the decision to give him the seat of honor at the National Convention. It may not have been tens of millions, but it was enough to help shift the election to Bush.

Indeed, there are people on the Right who may do more harm for Republican candidates than good. Is it then a good idea for the Democrats to heap praise upon their own idiotarians?

And where exactly are these oh-so-skittish center-left voters when Anne Coulter calls all liberals traitors? (Remember "Treason"). Somehow, Michael Moore scared them into Mr. Bush's camp, while Ms. Coulter, Mr. O'Rielly, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Hannity, and about 3,000 mouth-breathing conservative radio commentators didn't bother them a bit? IMHO, we can come up with better explanations for the 2004 election than "Michael Moore."


Anyway, I think that the Left's idiotarians do more damage to their side than the Right's. With Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and others, at least you can't question their patriotism. Moore's would be impossible to support. The Right's equivalent is Fred Phelps, who is as loathed by the mainstream Right as he is by the Left. Simply put, the mainstream Right is less tolerant of extremism than the Left.

Now far be it from me to attribute Kerry's defeat entirely to Moore. But in a 50-50 nation, small impacts matter.

Chesapeake Blue said...

I do not agree with you, and doubt that statistics would bear this point out.

I must say, though, that your center-left friends are not very bright. Poor them, so offended by a movie by Micheal Moore that they helped elect Bush, cement the right-wing of the Republican Party in unchecked power for the next four years, and probably handed the Religious Right the means to control the Supreme Court for a generation. I hope they are enjoying all of the wonderful "center left" governance that we are seeing these days from Messrs. Delay, Frist, and Rove.