Setting the table for disappointment
Posted by aogMonday, 01 November 2010 at 20:53 TrackBack Ping URL

Apparently there’s some buzz about some sort of political scandal from the Democratic Primary in South Carolina back in 2008. Personally, I can’t imagine what it could be, or even what those promoting the issue think it could be. After all, the Democratic Party already basically endorses voter fraud, along with their political allies, not to mention voter intimidation so what in the world do these people think could be uncovered that would further disgrace that party? That they falsely accused then Senator Hillary Clinton of racism? It’s what they’ve been doing for a year against all the Tea Parties.

I suspect they’ll find something, it will be a 2 day wonder, and then forgotten within a couple months.

P.S. Remember, even though the Department of Justice had explicitly rejected race neutral law enforcement it’s those Tea Partiers you have to watch. Not to mention how the Tea Partiers are all in the pay of foreign interests despite the Democratic Party taking in twice as much foreign money this election cycle, not to mention spent more money while the Tea Party candidates had an unprecedented amount of small donor contributors.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 02 November 2010 at 11:22

Well, that was entertaining.

Is Robert Mitchell Jr. “a gay dude from Boystown”? ‘Cause this sure sounds like him…

I was warned not to dig into this, and to “just let it go”.

Apparently, whatever South Carolina is about involves something the Democrat Party does not want to be revealed, because it would destroy them.

I want to burn the Democrat Party to the ground and then salt the Earth with its ashes so that it never reconstitutes itself again. […]

So, I don’t know what exactly is in South Carolina to find. But, I’ve been told not to put myself in danger by digging into it. I’ve been told there will be massive blowback by writing about whatever happened down there…

The Democrat Party should not be allowed to exist anymore. Americans need to stop supporting it, and to relegate it to either the dustbin of history or to marginalize it with the other radical, Marxist, lunatic fringe minor parties that exist for the entertainment and masturbatory enjoyment of radical Leftists in this country. […]

They say, “don’t get involved in this, or else”.

I say, “Welcome to Thunderdome, bitches”.

But that’s a fantasy.

Futuristic Utopia, featuring NO Democratic Party!!

If the Democratic Party broke up overnight, the movers and shakers would quickly rise to prominence again in whatever left wing party replaced them, because ANY party needs people who can organize, raise funds and get out the vote. (Or shakedown artists and arm-twisters, if you like.) That’s why the Libertarians have never gotten anywhere, because their organization is filled with ineffective nut-cases, as opposed to the major parties, who are largely staffed with effective whack-jobs.

Since the quoted person’s fury at the Democratic Party appears to stem from deep opposition to the methods and tactics used by Dem Party apparatchiks to shape and influence society and elections, the ONLY way to effectively combat such is to reform from the inside - smashing the Party would only lead to the vile fiends who staff it finding new homes, where they will continue their terrible activities.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 03 November 2010 at 08:17

What a turbulent decade, politically and otherwise.

2000: No need to elaborate.

2004: Bush won reelection over Democratic nominee Senator John Kerry with less than 51% of the popular vote and 286 electoral votes, the smallest winning margin for an incumbent president since Woodrow Wilson in the 1916 Presidential Election.

2006: The Democratic Party won a majority of the state governorships and the U.S. House and Senate seats, each for the first time since 1994. For the first time in the history of the United States, no Republican captured any House, Senate, or Gubernatorial seat previously held by a Democrat.

2008: First time in U.S. history that a black person, woman or Việt Nam veteran would be POTUS. Also one of the loooooongest Presidential campaigns in living memory, as the Democratic Party engaged in a Death-march style of choosing their candidate.

2010: The GOP House gains were the biggest swing for either party since 1948, when Democrats gained 75 seats on the back of President Truman’s campaign against a “do-nothing” GOP Congress - which was a similar dynamic to this election, in which the public vented their rage against a “do-nothing-constructive” Democratic Congress and a vastly disappointing President.

The last time such a large swing occurred in a midterm election was in 1938, when Democrats lost 72 seats to Republicans in the middle of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s second term.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 03 November 2010 at 09:48


I actually think the Democratic Party, as it is constituted, has a very real chance to disappear. However, as you note, the people in it aren’t going to turn to dust at the same time. My scenario runs like this —

  • Due to the wipe out of the non-loony Democratic Party, the coastal rump turns ever more proglodyte, leading to a death spiral
  • The “effective whack jobs” on that side note that their counterparts in the GOP are suffering as well.
  • The GOP then splits in to the Old Coot / Tea Party vs. The Establishment. The Democratic Party rats with clue then jump ship over to The Establishment Party because that’s really what they’re about.
  • The rump Democratic Party gradually decays away, picking up the Greens for a temporary boost but eventually becoming the proglodyte equivalent of the Libertarian Party.
AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 03 November 2010 at 11:39

Under that scenario, wouldn’t the Dems just turn into the Establishment Party?

As you note, there is NO conceivable race-based scandal that could destroy the Dems, although it could hurt for an election cycle.

Like sports teams, the names stay the same while the players, rules and general game zeitgeist all change. The “Democratic Party” brand is old and valuable, and the nation-wide organization and donor lists are still potent…

The culture of the party could change, which is why I suggest reform from within, as the Clintons and Reagan did to their respective parties. But the residual value of the party’s structure makes sweeping change from without problematic. The GOP famously refused to come in from the wilderness for decades during the middle of the last century…

In any case, politics is going to get yet more wild in the coming decade. We’ll see what emerges from the conflagration.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 03 November 2010 at 12:33

wouldn’t the Dems just turn into the Establishment Party?

No, because it is the establishment types who are getting wiped out by the current turmoil in that party. The winning proglodytes will have a very good chance at keeping ownership of the brand. In contrast, the Tea Parties and their allies are not nearly as concerned about the GOP brand, that will be much easier for the Establishment types to acquire.

The key thing to keep in mind is that the Establishment Party is just as power and money hungry as the proglodytes, but they’re the smart parasites who understand that if the host dies, so do they. Do you think they’ll want to go down with the POR ship? Or the having to campaign is beneath the dignity of a democracy Barney Frank brand?

P.S. A couple of things I have been saving but haven’t found a good hook for, so let’s drop them off here —

Branding — Soon to be former Representative Oberstar had, in his third quarter fundraising, exactly one contribution from his own district. That’s valuable branding?

As for giving up that kind of value, there’s this report that MSNBC online is seriously considering giving up that brand and URL just to escape the stink of MSNBC broadcast.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 03 November 2010 at 14:02

That’s valuable branding?

I would contend that it just supports a thesis that Oberstar is a schmuck. I could exceed that in his district as a Dem, and I’m nobody.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 19 November 2010 at 11:12

Someone else comes to the same conclusion

I will note that do not consider this an inevitability, but a reasonably likely scenario.

Post a comment