Carville: Dems must be “born again”

Democratic Party must be ‘born again,’ Carville says

“The underlying problem here is, there is no call to arms that the Democratic Party is making to the country,” said Mr. Carville, the architect of Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign win. “We’ve got to reassess ourselves. We’ve got to be born again.”

This is encouraging. It’s not the shrill “Half of America is stupid or evil; time to flee the country!” response, nor the “Karl Rove tricked voters about Kerry’s stances” excuse, nor the “It’s all leftover support from 9/11 and the WoT” excuse. It’s responsible, introspective, and constructive. Carville recognizes that the problem lies with the Democratic _message_, not the candidates, the current geopolitical issues, or the delivery of that message. The Democrats missed it. The message is not what it ought to be.

Bob Shrum goes on to say, in the same article

“Some of the stuff I read is not going to happen,” Mr. Shrum said. “The Democratic Party is not going to be better at competing with the Republican Party at being anti-gay. And frankly, I wouldn’t be in that party. I would leave that party.”

That’s disappointing, but at least the men mentioned in this article understand the need for reform. You won’t get back in power by being “Anybody But Bush”, nor by alienating over half the voters by calling them stupid, nor by embracing a seemingly unrelated set of sometimes extreme positions.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Carville: Dems must be “born again”

  1. Jared says:

    Well, this shouldn’t be too surprising, as abrasive and annoying as Carville can be, because his choice in a wife shows he has at least some good sense. ;-)

  2. rebecca says:

    his choice in a wife shows he has at least some good sense.

    This made me laugh, because everytime I see the guy I think the same thing, only turned around a bit to a woman’s perspective, “There must be SOMETHING admirable about him if SHE would marry him.”

  3. Chris P. says:

    Was that Carville or Jesus talking to Nicodemus in John 3? :-)
    Seriously though,I am pleasantly surprised by his matter of factness here. I never did understand the attraction in this marriage. Choose your cliche’.”There is someone for everyone” or “love is blind.”

  4. Patrick says:

    “You won?t get back in power by being ?Anybody But Bush?, nor by alienating over half the voters by calling them stupid, nor by embracing a seemingly unrelated set of sometimes extreme positions.”

    Seems an interesting viewpoint here. That’s the reason that I personally see the Republican party at the verge of splitting into 2 parties. The worst thing that could happen to it is success. You have 2 republican parties… one that is a group of religious fundamentalists and the other that is a collection of economic conservatives.

    In what way does small government lead to expanded laws governing social interaction? How exactly is one both pro-life and pro-death penalty? How can someone be both for expantion of states rights and governmental regulation of marriage?

    Barry Goldwater said that he couldn’t support the Republican party anymore under Reagan because it was too much against personal rights. The dems may be down, and we are going to have to look internally to figure out what to convince people to look at what seems to me to be a more self-consistent viewpoint than the alternative. However calling the Democrats out for calling voters stupid or embrasing positions that are contradictory… we learned it from Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, and Karl Rove. The problem is that the Democrats aren’t very good at being Republicans.

Comments are closed.