How low has the Democratic Party’s leadership sunk in the eyes of the party faithful? Well, a great many Democrats believe that Bush is an imbecile. They also believe that Bush outwitted their party’s leaders. You do the math. I wouldn’t be printing up those “Put Dick In The Oval Office” Buttons just yet.
Also, Jane Galt on the Democrats’ response to the elections, on Wednesday:
Walk me through the logic here: you just got routed in an election in which voters specifically expressed a desire to hand control of the Senate over to the other party. The main factor in your defeat seems to have been the opposing party’s overwhelmingly popular president. So the problem, say Democratic pundits, is that the party didn’t “stand up to the president”, and need to either
a) Move to the left
b) Go negative on the president
I’m afraid I’m not following the logical leap from
1) The voters dissed us because they like the President
to
2) We must therefore vigorously oppose the President by any means necessary.
Can someone fill me in?
Stuart Buck, linking to the same piece, on Thursday: Democratic pundits are arguing that “Democrats lost because President Bush is so popular, and therefore Democrats would have done better if they had more staunchly opposed him”
The Wall Street Journal, this morning (link for subscribers only): “Let’s see: Republicans won because their voters were fired up to defend Mr. Bush’s policies. So Democrats should have been even more vociferous in assailing those policies. No doubt Americans everywhere would have embraced a party that positioned itself as soft on the war on terror. (Look how it helped Max Cleland in Georgia!) And if that didn’t do it, then surely they would have flooded to the polls to endorse . . . a tax increase.”
Great minds think alike?