« Democrats Regaining Their Senses? | Main | The Recent History of Democrats on Iraq »

The Defining Quality Of Losers

Over the weekend, the Boston Globe published a column by Joan Venocchi, who discussed why the Democrats keep losing political races, most particularly the presidency.

Stripped of its excess verbiage and hand-wringing and "hey, look over there!" distractions, it boils down to a few simple ideas:

1) Stop beating up on Hillary Clinton.

2) Start beating up on Republicans more.

3) Leave Hillary Clinton alone.

4) Learn from the Republicans, and beat them up they way they're beating you up.

5) Really, can't we just declare Hillary the nominee now?

I think that the most entertaining bit is when Venocchi compares the departures from public life of Karl Rove and Bob Shrum. Rove (who showed a LOT of class last week, when he heard that one newsroom had cheered his departure, and sent them cookies with a note saying "my wife agrees with you") left doing just what he had all along -- tossed out a few verbal bombs that roasted Hillary Clinton. Shrum, on the other hand, wrote a tell-all book that revealed that a lot of what Republicans had been saying about the Democratic candidates was pretty much dead on.

Venocchi won't say it, but I will: it's an especially apt comparison of these two political masterminds. Rove was involved in two successful presidential races, Shrum has at last count a 0 for 8 record.

The defining quality of losers is that they lose. The Democrats spend way, way too much time re-fighting elections that they lost, instead of trying to figure out how to win the next one. Hell, one of the biggest factions among them is MoveOn.org, whose name refers to the Clinton impeachment scandal -- and that was almost a decade ago. In 2004, I saw hundreds of bumper stickers that read "Let's Not Elect Him In 2004, Either." And how many people have bumper stickers that celebrate "1-20-2009" or "Freedom Countdown Clocks" on their web sites that focus on the end of the Bush administration?

Here's a hint, folks: Bush ain't running in 2008. Find ways to distinguish yourselves from your rivals, but shredding each other doesn't do you a damned bit of good.

On the other hand, it is vastly entertaining -- and I have a hefty stockpile of popcorn at hand.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Defining Quality Of Losers:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Rove sees uphill climb for Clinton

» Liberty Pundit linked with Nightly Linkage

Comments (7)

I have it on good authority... (Below threshold)

I have it on good authority that Karl Rove left because people stopped trembling when he said, "I find your lack of faith disturbing."

Otherwise. I'll say that the Shrum/Rove comparison is apt, but I wonder if there's some sort of middle ground between the two. Shrum can't seem to win an election, while Rove wins elections using a strategy (mobilize the base! mobilize the base!) that yields short-term gains but appears to be less successful in the long term.


pennywit ...,a win... (Below threshold)

pennywit ...,

a win is still a win, babe.

Bush should address the nat... (Below threshold)

Bush should address the nation his last night in office and say he's declaring martial law and voiding the handover of power. Then, pause for a minute or two, staring at the camera before saying, "just kidding, folks!"

The number of leftist heads which would explode in those intervening minutes would improve both the tone and quality of our national dialog.

jim, where can i send the b... (Below threshold)

jim, where can i send the bill for the new monitor i'll need after reading your post? the one i had is covered in coffee now.

personally, i find it ironic how the left is always calling the Republicans the party of hate, yet the most hate filled screeds i have ever read have been on leftists sites. kind of an off topic point, but it goes to the view that people hold of Rove.

When liberals lose they act... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

When liberals lose they act like such idiots and well more like a spoiled brat who dont get their way

The Democratic Party can't ... (Below threshold)
Aog Author Profile Page:

The Democratic Party can't move on because changing to win elections would be to moving to the Right and abandoning the failed shiboleths of Socialism. The furthest they've gone in that direction was the DLC and look what's happening to it now.

LOL at Jim's #3 comment!</p... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

LOL at Jim's #3 comment!






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy