|
Edited on Fri Oct-21-05 12:47 AM by jackbourassa
I think this prick may cost us the 2006 elections. He's too busy getting magazines to write how great he is. How "hard" his balls are. Lining up his friends to say how great he is. I have lived by a simple philosophy taught to me by my dad: "If you have to tell people how great you are, you can't be very great."
What pisses me off most about Emmanuel is that he just doesn't seem to get it. He goes around saying how "successful" the Dems were in 1992, 1996 and 1998 because Clinton was an "agent for change." OH FUCKING REALLY?
First of all, Clinton did worse in 1992, than Dukakis did in 1988. I don't know why the Clintonistas are so blind to the Perot factor in that race. Perhaps it is because they can't bear to admit how goddamned lucky they actually were.
Second, 1996: More Perot. Clinton did as well in 1996, as Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. My point being that Clinton was no better than any other Democrat. The only difference was Ross Perot. In fact, since 1992, we have lost every election Ross Perot didn't run in. 1992 also happens to be the year that the DLC and Clintonistas took over the party, and they have controlled it since.
As far as 1998: I haven't the foggiest clue what shitbrick is talking about. What the hell did we win in 1998? The Republicans were as unpopular then as they are now and we picked up 3 seats in the House and held steady (zero gain/loss) in the Senate. (You folks who believe a Dem victory in 2006 inevitable keep that in mind). The problem was and is that the Clintons and jerks like Rahm Emmanuel saw that as a "victory." What really bothers me is that THEY STILL SEE IT AS A VICTORY. Which to me is proof enough why the Clintonistas and the DLC are such losers and lose us every election. An election where we should have cleaned up, we won three little seats and they declare victory. How good does that make you feel about our chances in 2006 with Rahm in charge of the House elections?
Which brings me to my last point. Rahm has publicly stated that this is not a left vs. right election. Rather it is change vs. Status quo. But what he fails to realize is that he, the DLC, and the Clintons represent the status quo. If he practiced what he preached, he wouldn't be pushing their agenda, he would be pushing ours. If we win in 2006, it may be because of our own efforts and have little to do with the DCCC. I have a very bad feeling about this. I think Rahm and the DLC smell trouble for the GOP. They want to push their agenda - so that they can take credit when/if we win. But what they fail to realize is that the Democrats have not broken through that 48% marker. Which is to say, we haven't convinced people angry with the GOP that they should vote for us. We are making a mistake if we just assume that the independants, angry with Republicans, will suddenly vote Democratic.
Remember that Kerry was at 48% and Bush at 44% for a large chunk of the election in 2004. Kerry never expressed a clear view on Iraq, economy, health care. Issues the public were trending in our direction. As a result, the 6% undecideds went to Bush - even though they disapproved of his first term performance.
CLARITY. We must have Clarity. We must differentiate ourselves. We must NOT be afraid of who we are and what WE BELIEVE IN. More people agree with us that the DLC will have you believe.
However, I am afraid that Rahm Emmanuel is more interested in helping Hillary get the nod and less about creating a new movement in Washington. This concerns me a lot given what is at stake.
How do you guys feel?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
