Nonny, on Nov 3 2004, 12:06 PM, said:
In order to keep the Democratic Party viable, it will have to become as negative, backstabbing and whining as the GOP. Not for nothing did Newt et al start that class on how to win elections by lying. The Dems will have to lower themselves into the muck and go negative fast and hard in the future. It works for the GOP, so that's what they'll have to do.
I disagree. I think if nothing else this election showed how futile it is for us Democrats to go negative, to sell their souls to hatemongers like Michael Moore and hope that dislike of Bush will sweep our candidate into office.
It seems to me that, quite to the contrary, what we have to do is field a candidate who can match Bush on the issue that apparently mattered the most to voters this year -- "moral values." And I don't think that means taking a reactionary stand on abortion or gay marriage. What it means is abandoning the politics of whining and victimization, and finding someone who can passionately argue for
the values that liberals think it's important to protect -- civil liberties, fiscal responsibility, strong diplomatic relations -- instead of just against
I even wonder if touchy issues like gay marriage would swing the other way if a liberal candidate would have the guts to express his opinion in the same morally vigorous terms that the other side employs. To say not, "Well, who are we to dictate whom a person chooses to marry, whether they're gay or straight?" but "If two gay people love and are committed to each other, it is good
that the law recognize their love and commitment."