NYT: "Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?hp

President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.

I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.

Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.

Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.

[Ranec]

1. Yes!

Long live Krugman :toast:

[highplainsdem]

2. I love Krugman.

[ComerPerro]

3. We need to do what we can to retake the language

For many reasons, quite frankly. But, as it relates specificaly to this topic, we need to redefine the word "conservative".

You know how they took the word liberal, and twisted it to mean something just a little more fringe and extremist sounding than the word "radical"?

We need to do the same thing with Conservative.

When you say the word "conservative", make sure that your tone of voice makes perfectly clear your level of disgust, contempt, disdain, and mistrust of conservative individuals and ideals. Make "conservative" the new profanity.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

5. The Democratic Party needs a "Karl Rove."

Pure and simple. Someone who lives, eats, breathes and craps the Democratic Party.

Someone who UNDERSTANDS the "base," communicates to it, mobilizes it, and expands it.

There's too much "grey area."

[ComerPerro]

6. The Democratic party needs a lot of things

It needs a Rush Limbaugh, a Sean Hannity, a Bill OReiley, an Ann Coulter, and an actual liberal media.

Although, quite frankly, I am happier with my soul.

Republicans have been manipulating and lying to the public for years. They are good at it now. And, since they apparently have no morals at all, they can lie without remorse. They tell the kind of lies that appeal to laziness, insecurities, and pride. And not enough people bother to question any of it.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

7. It's the old "factual / emotional" ratio

Some people think Kerry had a challenge getting his message across because he didn't reach people on an emotional level.

The Bush "all hat, no cattle" bit. Kerry had the cattle. He needed a different hat.

The Republicans have two things that we do not:

1). A "Karl Rove" (Terry McCauliffe is NOT it)

2). A "mechanism" on par with Fox News and the Hannity / Rush radio shows. I know WHO these people are and I know WHAT they are, but I also know this: they are hammering their "base" with the "message" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and the "base" just swallows it up whole.

We need to take a deep breath and realize that as long as the Republican party has a "vision" (no matter how sick or twisted it may be), a "Karl Rove" who can make noise and get attention, and a "mechanism" to take that vision out over the airwaves around the clock, we cannot win.

The Republicans need to be met with greater, not equal or lesser force.

[robbedvoter]

10. here's a successful application

"Are too!"..."Am not"!..."Are too!"..."Am not!""
Author daldem    
1811 posts
Date Fri Nov-05-04 10:25 AM
  
        

My conversation with my republican stepson this morning.
Daldem: "Congratulations, you evangelicals pulled it off"
Stepson: "I'm NOT an evangelical".
Daldem: "Yes you are"
Stepson: "I am not, I'm a Methodist"
Daldem: "Maybe so, but deep down you're an evangelical".
Stepson: "I am not !"
Daldem: "That is okay if you are, I still love you"
Stepson: "I am NOT an evangelical"
Kids, I think we have a new dirty word. It is even better
than Liberal. From this day forwad every republican that
I know will be addressed as an evangelical. After many
"are toos and am nots" I ended the conversation saying that
apparently he needs to find out more about his own party's
base.
http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=2&topic_id=335611&mesg_id=335611&page=

[ConservativeDemocrat]

11. A better phrase: "UnChristian Conservative"

I agree with you totally that the we need to change the language, but "radical" doesn't cut it, since many people think "radical" can be good.

I much prefer the phrases UnChristian Conservative and American Pharisees, as I outline in this post here.

- C.D.

[gWbush is Mabus]

4. should've wrote this before 11/5/04

[Triana]

8. He's our very own Osama... (n/t)

[robbedvoter]

9. Not NYT! Krugman! Very different sources. This one - credible

Krugman is a hero!