October 21, 2006

"The advice that came back was unabashed: 'You must take him down.'"

"Him," meaning President Bush. That advice -- according to WaPo -- came from "advertising executives, Internet moguls and language specialists," who were consulted by Nancy Pelosi after the Democrats did badly in the 2004 election.

advertising executives, Internet moguls and language specialists.... advertising executives, Internet moguls and language specialists.... advertising executives, Internet moguls and language specialists... advertising executives, Internet moguls and language specialists....

I'm having trouble thinking about government this morning...

14 comments:

George said...

Robert Caro tells a great story about LBJ's bipartisanship as Senate Majority Leader in the second volume of his biography.

Shortly after the 1952 election, the Democratic Senators met in private. Some said, "Our NATO spending is out-of-control. We have higher domestic priorities. Our constituents say, 'No to NATO.' We have to attack Eisenhower."

(Unlike Bob Woodward's sources, I can't remember quotes exactly, so these are approximations....)

Johnson replied--probably with a tumbler of whiskey in his paw--"I've met Russians. I don't like 'em. I've been to Europe. It's a mess. It needs our help. There's a ton of defense manufacturing in Texas. Plus, there're a ton of Texans in the military. What's more, folks like Ike. Hell, I've met Ike, and I like Ike. We're going give him everything he wants on NATO. If he gives us a hard time on labor and other domestic issues important to us, we'll give him hell."

If only today's Democrats had LBJ for a leader....

Slac said...

It's Saturday. You're forgiven. :)

Jim H said...

If only their war was against people who want to kill us rather than against President Bush.

Gerry said...

And this is why I hope you vote for the GOP, Ann. No question, it is a flawed party, with some real idiots and with some positions that are contrary to yours.

Just like every party that has ever existed, and likely just like every party that ever will.

On the other side, though, is a party that has really gone off the deep end. Success, for them, will only reward the turn they have taken. Is that what you want for your vote?

RogerA said...

This tidbit should come as no surprise; politics is nasty and the attacks on the President have been unrelenting--goes with the territority, regretably.

I appreciatie one aspect of the President's character: he is not poll driven; on the other hand, much of these attacks gain traction because the President is such a lousy communicator and has never used his bully pulpit to full advantage.

SMGalbraith said...

The Islamis jihadists are our enemy.

The president (of either party) is not our enemy.

Any party that has that backwards won't get my vote.

Granted, one hand will be covering my eyes, the other will be covering my mouth and I'll have to use my foot to vote for the stupid Republicans, but so be it.

SMG

PatCA said...

Too bad Mme. Pelosi doesn't have an advisory group of disaffected Democrats, those who have left the party in droves and voted Republicans in.

AJ Lynch said...

Here is a quote from the WAPO story...."Pelosi and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) rarely work together, and the Democrats voted along party lines 88 percent of the time last year -- the most unified voting record in 50 years -- according to a Congressional Quarterly study. By hanging together, the Democrats have thwarted many GOP initiatives, including the centerpiece of Bush's second-term agenda, restructuring Social Security."

Jeez that makes Pelosi and The Dems sound like Dividers and Not Uniters. Odd that the MSM only lays that label on Bush.

And I think the pols would be smart to reach out to folks other than these bigwigs. Here is a thought...why wouldn't Pelosi use 10 or 20 of Ann's commenters to tell her what to do.

Theo Boehm said...

I agree with much of what's been said above. George's Robert Caro story that starts the comments reminds us just how bad our politics have gotten. LBJ as President made the catastrophic mistake of Vietnam, but his domestic policy instincts and his leadership within the Democratic Party before he got to that office were spot on.

I'm someone who wants universal health care AND a vigorous, proactive national defense. Like many here, I'm a disaffected Democrat who's voted Republican but don't like it. I disagree with much of George Bush's domestic policy, but I sure as hell don't want the President "brought down" in these difficult times. Iraq was a mistake, IMHO, but with a little unity, we might be able to pull off a tolerable result--certainly not what George Bush had in mind, but something better than the defeat in detail so many on the alleged "left" seem to be yearning for. I say this as someone who never even considered voting for George Bush.

Just as the illusory sense of invincibility was one of the echoes of WWII, so the sweaty need for the United States to be defeated is an echo of Vietnam. A party that promises to move past this will get my vote. Failing that, the party that promises the strongest and most effective defense will get it. I'm hoping these will coincide in the Democrats sometime soon, but given the influence of the Kos types and the looney left in the party now, I'm not holding my breath.

Fritz said...

"scorched-earth strategy of refusing to negotiate with the GOP have put her on track to become the first woman to be speaker of the House."

In other words, the Post thinks she should be rewarded with leadership for pure partisanship the Post claims to reject. The only reason the public is fed up with Congress is because the Democrats have been obstructionists, an insurgency. The Democrats should be punished for this behavior.

Fritz said...

Gorege,
You are right, but this Party is not the Party of LBJ. They hate Bush more than they love their country. The MSM would have never let the Republican Party do what Pelosi has done. If a Republican Senator protested the Electoral College like Boxer did, it would have been a major scandal, but not even a mention on MSM that day.

Brent said...

It may be politics, but it's Machiavelian Politics, Democrat style, - which says everything about the character of the people in charge.

And character, my friends, is EVERYTHING.

There's an old piece of scripture that says to not raise up to a higher office anyone that is not "faithful in the little things. For he who is faithful in the little, is also faithful in much." In other words, if a man is dishonest or crooked in the small things, that's as indicator of his character.

If there are rumors that he's unfaithful to his wife before he's raised up, why do you expect him to be all moral and circumspect when he's in a higher position?

If there are rumors and questions about her financial integrity before he's raised up, why do you expect her to be an example of financial virtue after he's raised up?

If she puts her own (and party's interests) over the good of the American people now, why do you expect her to change when she get's the big prize?

PatCA said...

Theo,
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think we do have universal health care. Poor people get very good care, and the taxpayers pay for it. If you mean single payer, I'll have to part company with you there. I have worked for the government, and they are the last equipped to do this job.

Revenant said...

The idea that the Democrats are doing well because of something THEY did is pretty ridiculous. Iraq isn't going well and the Republicans have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot. The opposition doesn't need special insight to figure out how to do well against in a second-term midterm election with an unpopular war and various majority-party scandals in progress.