Gay Patriot Header Image

Dems Desperate For A Hero

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:09 pm - February 13, 2006.
Filed under: American History,Liberals

DJ Drummond has been one of my favorite conservative bloggers since I “took up the keyboard” in 2004. He is spot on with this insightful post about the demise of the National Democratic Party.

Even the most disgraced Republican President in memory had achievements in his work which commiserate his historical position.

Compare with them the Democrats; the last Democrat to serve as President was impeached, and later admitted to the essential facts in the charges against him. The last Democrat before him to win election, was a one-term Democrat who managed to create two simultaneous conditions which economists previously thought impossible; Consumer Price Index showing Inflation above ten percent, at the same time as wager-earner Unemployment above ten percent. The last Democrat before him to hold office, chose not to run for re-election because his own party said they wouldn’t support him. Not a happy string of terms and results.

Also, there is recent history. Nine of the last fourteen Presidential elections have gone to the Republicans, and five of the last seven. Census reports and public opinion polls show a steady drift from a Democratic preference among party identification to a an even balance. And if trends continue among minority shifts, the exurban control by conservatives and the political death of the liberal bastions at union halls and college campuses, the Republicans may expect to see an effective permanent majority.

When someone mentions the “Bush Doctrine”, people know what he means. Same for Reagan. But no one can explain what, if anything, was addressed by the “Clinton Doctrine”, or the “Carter Doctrine”. No Democrat since Kennedy has been an effective speaker on his foreign policy, or defined a realistic economic program. And no Democrat since FDR has been able to show the promised results. Republicans can point to modern history and current events, once the MSM spin has been corrected. Democrats cannot, even with spin in their favor, show anything for their promises.

Democrats need a hero, because all the ones they could point to on their side have faded into obscurity. And it sure looks like the only heroes on the horizon today, are on the Right side of the issues.

I nearly reprinted the whole piece because I couldn’t cut much out! The Carter Doctrine…. isn’t that selling out your country when any TV camera’s red light comes on?

OT — Tonight, I’m fixed in front of the tube to watch speed skating in HDTV!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. On point. Unlike the Bush Doctrine or Reagan Doctrine, you need look no furthur than New Orleans and Katrina to see a Democrat Doctrine if you will.
    The results of decades of “Great Society” welfare…government handouts..and what it can do to unsuspecting recepients over time. Generation after generation of stay at home folks with little ambition to change and better their condition. One of the sadest video clips I saw out of New Orleans during the after math, were people trapped wondering out loud how the postman was going to find them now. After finding food and shelter…how oh how were the govt checks going to find them. That is the legacey of Democrat Prez including the failed Carter and Clinton.

    Comment by Gene — February 13, 2006 @ 7:27 pm - February 13, 2006

  2. Isn’t “Osama Obama” the new hero?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 13, 2006 @ 7:37 pm - February 13, 2006

  3. Consumer Price Index showing Inflation above ten percent, at the same time as wager-earner Unemployment above ten percent.

    I don’t think you can hold Jimmy Carter responsible for the economy and OPEC. Actually I think a President has a very limited role he can play in the economy. Even I, a known Bush hater, don’t hold him responsible for the economy.

    And while I’d love to blame Bush for the federal deficit, the truth is that the blame for the most part should fall on Congress, the masters of Pork.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 13, 2006 @ 8:52 pm - February 13, 2006

  4. #3

    I don’t think you can hold Jimmy Carter responsible for the economy and OPEC.

    As long as it’s a liberal in question, right?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 13, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - February 13, 2006

  5. “Bush Doctrine:” Ignore the Constitution, repay big industry, foil consumer and environmental issues, tax relief for the wealthy, big government to help the oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries, increase the deficit, ignore AIDS prevention, deny Plan B, hire cronies, do nothing when natural disasters hit, create a myth to fight them Islmofascists, deny habeas corpus to citizens, take money from well-funded lobbyists, spy on Americans, fight a war against Iraq (who hates us, as does the rest of the world), nominate idiots, privatize everything, sack Americans with the largest energy bills, deny benefits to the truly needy, create a war between straights and gays, pray to the Lord, and stop drinking alcohol. I’m sure I’ve missed other significant doctrinal points, but others will fill those in. Oh yes, have your VP out CIA personnel and shoot innocent bystanders. This is Bush’s Amerika!

    Comment by Stephen — February 13, 2006 @ 9:57 pm - February 13, 2006

  6. Oh, I forgot Halliburton. You know, the company the VP was chairman and president of, that’s received billions in unbidded contracts? The federalization of education? Medicare Part D, the biggest boondoggle in 60 years? Katrina, or those who were left behind, and still are receiving government bailout to rent their luxurious hotel rooms? The New Orleans “flap” about NOT funding the levee improvement system according the Army Corp of Engineers? And who could forget the War on Terror? Just two weeks ago, the Military Chiefs of Staff FINALLY approved action in Iraq, because GWB was too busy removing brush on his ranch. Over 2500 DEAD and another 20,000 MAIMED. What’s not to like about the “Bush Doctrine?”

    Comment by Stephen — February 13, 2006 @ 10:07 pm - February 13, 2006

  7. That’s some real nice paranoid delusion you got going on there, Stephen. Real nice.

    Comment by V the K — February 13, 2006 @ 10:26 pm - February 13, 2006

  8. Why Stephen, I’m shocked….you forgot the concentration camps that you libs say already exist, or to accuse we gay conservative and Republican types of wanting to strip gays of jobs and housing, then imprison them (presumably in the concentration camps).

    I mean, why not? Those accusations are as truthful as all the other ones you keep levying…..

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2006 @ 10:27 pm - February 13, 2006

  9. Stevie, shut the fuck up and go jerk off…

    You’ll feel better.

    Just Me (and a quart of Wet Platinum) in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 13, 2006 @ 10:37 pm - February 13, 2006

  10. Notice Stephen still didnt list the great things accomplished by the legendary Democrat Presidents Carter and Clinton. He has to spew hate about Mr Bush.
    And to Gryph, when i ask Liberals to list the accomplishments of Clinton they usually come up with 3….the extendedleave act, the economy and i forget the third, stability in Haiti I think. So if you arent giving him any credit for the economy in the 90’s, he isnt going to get on Mt Rushmore withthe rest of that list.

    Comment by Gene — February 13, 2006 @ 10:38 pm - February 13, 2006

  11. Stephen says W nominates idiots….does he know Al Gore was a “c” student?

    Comment by Gene — February 13, 2006 @ 10:44 pm - February 13, 2006

  12. True, there’s no Democrat of national prominence who gives one much confidence in that party’s ability to lead. But, except for perhaps Rudy, I also don’t see any Republican on the horizon who inspires me.

    While not as unhappy as Stephen is, I am disappointed in George W. Bush, for whom I voted in 2000 and again in ’04.

    Stephen’s posts bother me. Not because of what he wrote, but because those of you who disagree with him stoop to calling him names instead of trying to counter his arguments point by point.

    Comment by Jack Allen — February 13, 2006 @ 11:44 pm - February 13, 2006

  13. Fore the most part, I agree with Patric (Gryph) on Presidents and the economy. As a rule, they probably get too much credit / blame for a good / bad economy. It is true that Carter inherited the economic time bomb built through the 70’s, but he also, much like Hoover, hadn’t a clue which economic leavers to pull to get things moving in the right direction. With Reagan we got a bold economic plan, a paradigm shift if you will, that eventually gave us the great economic boom of the 80’s. And I do think that the Bush tax cuts did lessen the blow of the last recession and the economic ripples created by 9 /11, but his unwillingness to even pretend to control spending (not a single veto in 5 1/2 years) bothers me to no end. I voted for him the first time because I liked his stance of budget reform to unravel the disaster that is base-line budgeting. I didn’t vote for him in ’04 because he operates at a 180 degree position from that position. We need spending reform now. Take government spending ceteris paribus, if and when the economy slows down (thats what it does sooner or later; it’s crest and trough) what then? In this congress, it is impossible to cut spending, and there will not be the support for the large tax cuts we had in 2000. There simply is not much of a case left to cut more taxes considering the spending, and lets face it, the salesmanship of this administration is declining from bad to horrible. Meanwhile, the slower economy equals less revenue for the spenders. As we’ve already seen in California, they won’t cut spending. The deficit has absorbed all it can. Like Kaleefornia, issuing bonds won’t cut the mustard. So I ask; when economic times get tough, what will the government do? We may end up in a situation where we’ll have to significantly raise taxes. And the measly cuts in entitlements won’t make a difference. If the Republicans don’t start righting the fiscal ship immediately, they all will pay a big price down the road.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 13, 2006 @ 11:51 pm - February 13, 2006

  14. Sonicfrog, that was one of the most intelligent posts I’ve read in ages.

    Thanks for your words, my friend!

    Eric in Awe on the Left Coast

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 14, 2006 @ 12:35 am - February 14, 2006

  15. Thanks man. Now my brain hurts.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 14, 2006 @ 1:12 am - February 14, 2006

  16. No wonder…

    Anyone that is able to actually use the words, ceteris paribus and NOT suffer a coronary is entitled to a headache! 🙂

    Thanks for the intelligent argument, nonetheless!

    Eric, eating buttered popcorn and mourning the failure of Inouye & Baldwin in the Pairs Long program. Nice while it lasted…

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 14, 2006 @ 1:24 am - February 14, 2006

  17. #5

    Liberal Doctrine – ……………………………..

    “Uhmmm. That’s an unfair question!’

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 14, 2006 @ 1:25 am - February 14, 2006

  18. #6

    Based on your post, one would have to wonder why Halliburton took so long to make money.

    Furthermore, why didn’t it bother you when lord BJ granted them “no-bid” contracts? Or were you too busy humping his leg to notice?

    I also wonder about your Corps of Engineers statement since they said, shortly after the storm, that the levees were NOT underfunded. I also note that you apparently don’t give a damn about the fact that the liberals in Louisiana were spending that money on everything BUT the levees to the point that the government was demanding the money be RETURNED.

    The federalization of education????? Since when has it not been federalized? That’s a bit of liberal bread and butter right there. They can make ass loads of money off the unions and curry votes at the same time.

    I swear you have to be the most worthless oxygen thief out there.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 14, 2006 @ 1:35 am - February 14, 2006

  19. It’s also interesting that libs don’t give a damn when REAL national security issues are leaked.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 14, 2006 @ 1:37 am - February 14, 2006

  20. Stephen’s posts bother me. Not because of what he wrote, but because those of you who disagree with him stoop to calling him names instead of trying to counter his arguments point by point.

    We used to do that, but Stephen demonstrated that he does not come here to argue substantively. He comes to spew talking points. He never answers challenges people raise to his points. He never provides sourcing to the assertions he posts. There is really no point in responding to him, other than to dismiss his paranoid, delusional rantings.

    Comment by V the K — February 14, 2006 @ 5:34 am - February 14, 2006

  21. Or, put another way, Stephen is a joke. You don’t respond to a joke by arguing with it, you laugh at it.

    Comment by V the K — February 14, 2006 @ 5:41 am - February 14, 2006

  22. NDT: You’re absolutely right. I forgot the concentration camps, aka, rendition camps, located in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and formerly used by the KGB and Muslim fanatics. When SCOTUS ruled against GWB over Gitmo, GWB simply moved the “detainees” to these camps on foreign land under the euphemism of “rendition.” So screw SCOTUS. GWB is the imperial president, and he can do what he wants to do.

    Seems he did the same thing about wiretaps, too. That damn Fourth Amendment and FISA law sucks. Hey, NDT?

    Comment by Stephen — February 14, 2006 @ 5:42 am - February 14, 2006

  23. Do you really believe the financial condition of Halliburton is “unprofitable” after so many billions of government handouts? Those dividends and executive pay suggest otherwise. Oh, I am aware that the SEC is investigating Halliburton, and so is the GAO. With so many subsidiaries having received so many billions of dollars from GWB, it can be a challenge to read its financial report. Since you don’t seem able to read a financial report, may I suggest you invest in Enron, instead.

    For the idiot who does not know that education was never under federal control until “No Child Left Behind,” I suggest you read something other than wingnut literature. Oh, the Department of Education has existed since the ’70s, but never “controlled” anything (except when racism was a factor). GWB changed that. He’s the first president to federalize education. He’s proud of it! Why aren’t you? (Yes, I know it violates the principles of “conservatism” and “subsidiarity,” but GWB has never been a conservative, nor fully understood the Roman Catholic notion of “subsidiarity,” despite the NCCB repeated tries to teach him.)

    The Army Corps of Engineers’ reduced budget, and the precise diminuition of the levee program, was WIDELY reported in LA and in U.S. World & News and the NYT and WaPo. READ a real paper, for gawd’s sake. Or, if that bothers you, compare budgets from 1999 and thereafter. GWB CUT the levee renewal project 37% each of his four years so that “he could balance the budget.” If you’re not laughing, at least have some empathy for the hundreds of dead.

    And GWB was “vacationing” and took five days to respond to the worst natural disaster in America’s history. While people were drowning in New Orleans, GWB was giving a speech on Social Security privitization in California, golfing in Idaho, and removing bush on his ranch. And if YOU really want to defend Michael Brown’s leadership of FEMA, maybe you should read the REPUBLICAN report by the GAO before making a fool of yourself.

    If Harriet Mier is YOUR example of great nominees, tell us what a worse-case scenario would look like? How about the 25-year old who resigned his position at NASA over “Intelligent Design” this last week. First, he had no prior experience whatsoever; he’d just graduated college. What, for heaven’s sake, does Creationism have to do with running space technology? Neither “qualified” him to run a space agency. About two months ago, the New Republic magazine published a CV of 50 GWB appointees — ALL cronies without appropriate experience to function within, let alone run, the departments the Republican Congress stamped with approval. While it’s true that the elected reward their contributors with federal jobs, nobody has done a worse job of matching contributor to task. Total and incompetent disconnect. Be honest with yourself: What does being President of the Arabian Horsetrainers Assn prepare one to run a disaster program?

    Perhaps — although I know it’s a stretch — you see why I don’t respond to your individual critiques. Almost all the “retorts” are simply stupid, like the dude who cited Bobby Kennedy’s wiretaps in the ’60, a decade BEFORE Congress passed FISA, in defense of GWB’s wiretaps. In a word: anachronism. At least he knew he bit the dust and was chewing crow.

    Sad, but true, most of you GWB apologists don’t seem to read newspapers, political/economic journals, other blogs, etc. Instead, you “mind-fuck” incestuously with each other. If you only read KKK news, it’s the only “news” you will “know.” That’s why I let most of your inane remarks slide by. As Jack Allen pointed out, you’re still in the “ad hominem mode.” It’s the only mode you dudes seem to know. The only way to retort to ad hominems is ignore them. If you won’t play within the domain of reason, there’s no reason reasoning with you.

    Comment by Stephen — February 14, 2006 @ 6:28 am - February 14, 2006

  24. If you only read KKK news, it’s the only “news” you will “know.”

    Like I said, a joke. It’s so nice when you make a point about someone, and then they immediately prove it for you.

    Comment by V the K — February 14, 2006 @ 7:28 am - February 14, 2006

  25. Also, Jack, let’s have a reality check and a little perspective here. First of all, Stephen is filled with blind, irrational hatred for Bush and there is no point in trying to reason with him. He doesn’t want to hear it. And he has shown that even after his points are refuted, he’ll just paste them into the next thread as if nothing was ever said.

    Second, and for me this is most important, let’s keep a little perspective: This is the comments section of a weblog. Nothing anyone says here is going to change the world. In fact, it’s unlikely to even be read outside those who participate and a few lurkers. So, what’s the point in getting worked up about any argument made here, much less putting time and effort into refuting the paranoid delusional rantings of a yammering jackass? I got better things to do. I hope everybody else does, too.

    Comment by V the K — February 14, 2006 @ 7:39 am - February 14, 2006

  26. I’m not sure I follow V the K’s insistence that one is blind, when the facts are not only apparent, but transparent. To retort it’s all “a joke,” is exactly the frame of mind I’ve repeatedly challenged as nothing more than ad hominem after ad hominem. Moreover, I find nothing funny, much less humorous, about 2500+ dead and 20,000 maimed, over a war GWB created from selective intelligence before 9/11 even happened. Maybe V the K finds 40,000 new HIV seroconversions each year funny, because Stop AIDS Projects can’t receive federal funds and mention “condoms.” Maybe V the K is also amused that GWB has frequently used the “anti-gay” card to foster division among the citizens. Or that GWB’s brother is the only Governor of a state that disallows GLBT from adopting needy children. My side is splitting, but not from laughter or humor by the “joke.” Maybe it’s humorous that 38% of all federal AIDS money is channelled through religious organizations, the joke, of course, being they’ll use the money to bury GLBT folk instead of aiding and abetting those in need. And I can’t tell you how many times I can’t stop laughing when I pass a homeless or hungry person, knowing that GWB has cut all forms of aid to the needy, poor, and marginalized. If they their lives are “fucked” now, wait till all the anti-poor programs passed by the Republicans and signed by GWB start throwing more people onto the streets.

    Yes, V the K, GWB is a “joke,” but only when understood of the context of issues like the above. Failed domestic “policy.” Failed foreign “policy.” Regression to a 19th-century Puritanism/Victorianism. Massive incompetents not even remotely suitable for public service, aka, cronyism, are the standard rather than the exception. Maybe our Constitution is a “joke,” but who gave GWB sole authority to regard it as such? Who will be laughing if YOUR phone is wiretapped in violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment? Still, I cannot find rendition or denial of habeas corpus humorous in the slightest. The “joke” has been GWB and many of his Republican cohorts. I grant that Medicare Part D is definitely a joke, one pulled by GWB’s technocrats on the elderly and disabled. But again, it’s not of the “laughing” kind. Only theocrats, neocons, and GWB apologists are laughing. Is that the “joke” you find compelling?

    Comment by Stephen — February 14, 2006 @ 9:29 am - February 14, 2006

  27. HollywoodNeoCon: “Stevie, shut the fuck up and go jerk off…” LA’s smog so thick you can’t think? Or is this your “usual and customary” nature? Or is this YOUR prescription for all that ails us? How about you “grow up?”

    Comment by Stephen — February 14, 2006 @ 9:34 am - February 14, 2006

  28. What’s not to like about the “Bush Doctrine?”

    Is this you?

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 14, 2006 @ 10:54 am - February 14, 2006

  29. Perhaps joke was a bit of an understatement. Stephen is more of a cartoon. One of those craptacular early-70’s Hanna-Barbara creations with the bad synch, a total of about four poses per character, and endless repetition and recycling of the same backgrounds. Fortunately, he provides his own laugh track.

    Comment by V the K — February 14, 2006 @ 11:05 am - February 14, 2006

  30. […] I don’t usually read Polipundit — blogs that disallow trackbacks annoy me — but I saw an intriguing link on Gay Patriot, so I followed it: […]

    Pingback by Right Wing Nation » Democrat Hero? — February 14, 2006 @ 11:27 am - February 14, 2006

  31. Steven wrote:

    To retort it’s all “a joke,” is exactly the frame of mind I’ve repeatedly challenged as nothing more than ad hominem after ad hominem.

    Dude, are you aware of just how much you sound like Sean Hannity with your persistent use of the phrase “ad hominem”??? That’s his favorite word. He can’t get through an interview with a “liberal” with out accusing him or her (usually him) of launching “ad hominem” attacks. That will take up most of the interview. That’s one reason why I don’t watch or listen to him (that and the stupid Scheivo thing). It’s annoying as hell. Sometimes you write some good stuff, make some good points, even if I disagree with much of the arguments you’ve made. But then you go no these non-nonsensical tangents that ooze all over the place, like suds coming out of a squeezed soapy sponge. We all get it. Some people here will use “ad hominem” attacks. BFD. People commenting on blogs tend to do that, in case you didn’t notice. Get used to it and grow a thicker skin.

    BTW: “And I can’t tell you how many times I can’t stop laughing when I pass a homeless or hungry person, knowing that GWB has cut all forms of aid to the needy, poor, and marginalized”.

    ALL forms of aid???? Since you think yourself the master of identifying false logic, which type of false argument(s) is this an example of? Do you really want to take that position? If so then all I would have to do is find one type of aid where spending has increased or remained steady to prove you are incorrect.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 14, 2006 @ 12:39 pm - February 14, 2006

  32. Oooops,

    “But then you go no these non-nonsensical tangents that ooze all over the place….”

    An unintended double negative. I just said you make sense after all:-)

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 14, 2006 @ 12:42 pm - February 14, 2006

  33. stevie wrote…

    LA’s smog so thick you can’t think? Or is this your “usual and customary” nature? Or is this YOUR prescription for all that ails us? How about you “grow up?”

    Didn’t I tell you to go jerk off?

    Geez, doofus. Lighten up, will ya please?

    Eric in Bliss

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 14, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - February 14, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.