"All too often Republican politics has been reduced to the conveyance of simple messages to simple minds in which neither group understands what these messages mean, delivered by a messenger picked on the basis of Q-ratings, who is neither well informed, trustworthy, nor qualified."

I take pleasure when events I spot early on and piece together as a mini-trend seem to be supported by subsequent events confirming my original suspicions. In this context, I feel I am on to something sinister brewing in the right wing media with yet another staunch conservative pundit attempting to warn the Dems that they shouldn't nominate a "liberal" like Dean. whom they all claim will take the party too far to the left into resounding defeat.

For the life of me, I have never known any white male who would knowingly and willingly give his opponent valuable advice against his own best interests. Most white males are just too darn competitive with each other for that to happen. Yet many influential conservative media pundits have been doing just that. The only comparison I can make would be this: George Steinbrenner telling other AL East opponents what little trick or inside info they need to get the edge on his Yankees. It isn't going to happen.

Cal Thomas, a staunch right winger, whose positions I seldom agree with even in part, recently stepped up to the plate to take his swing at the same pitch, commenting that the Dems would go down in defeat like they did against Reagan and both Bushies if they nominated someone "too liberal" like Dean. The problem with Thomas is that anyone even slightly to the left of Hitler is someone "ultra left" in his eyes. Carter didn't lose to Reagan because he was too liberal. Dukakis didn't lose to G. H. W. Bush because he was too liberal. Gore didn't lose to an inarticulate, underqualified Bush because he was too liberal. And Gore didn't lose to Bush in 2000. He had the election stolen from him in Florida with some much needed assistance from the politicized Supreme Court. My guess is that Cal Thomas doesn't want to hear all of the real reasons these Democratic candidates weren't elected President because it would NOT reflect positively on the Republican presidents who beat them nor the nasty unlawful and immoral tactics of their campaigns. Yes, bible-thumping Mr. Thomas, IMMORAL!

Cal Thomas refers to a recent DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) poll in which it was suggested the Democrats would be defeated in 2004 if their support among white males was further eroded (meaning the party moved even an inch to the left and away from the middle). We all know that pollsters are often hired to tell someone what they want to hear, and this current DLC poll would be no exception, since they are a centrist group attempting to keep control of the Democratic Party and these poll results fit their agenda perfectly.

Of the current crop of candidates, the one suggested as the best choice was none other than Joe Lieberman, who actively hawked the Iraq War. I don't know anyone supporting Lieberman, not even Jews. He is trailing most of the other candidates badly not only in the polls but in fundraising. Most of us have seen Lieberman in front of the TV cameras. It is more than obvious to all but the blind that he has no charisma. With television having such a major impact upon elections, if you don't look "right" on camera, you can forget about becoming president of these here United States. That's why we don't have bald, extremely short and scrawny, or uncharismatic men becoming President...at least not intentionally. But this also holds true: White males are just one group of voters, who while influencing an election don't by themselves control one. If that were the case, Bill Clinton wouldn't have been elected twice and Al Gore wouldn't have won the popular vote by more than 500,000. Your average white male resents and fears more powerful and successful men and women. It's the reason Rush Limbaugh has the audience he does: Young to middle age angry white males who are losing power and control in the workplace and marketplace to better educated, more successful, and sexually more powerful minorities and women. And it is this same spiteful group who continually attacked Bill Clinton so viciously and are still obsessing over him.

The reason this George Bush doesn't draw the wrath of these angry white male is because he has no sexual appeal--absolutely none! Both men and women know this. And to top it off, his pre-political life has been one of mostly failure and under-achievement, which is probably why his group of supporters would label him "down to earth" rather than "ignorant and unqualified."

So here's the real dilemma: If the Dems nominate someone who is not very charismatic on TV and/or is too intimidating to white males, they won't have a candidate who has what it takes to beat Bush among the rest of their constituency. But if they nominate someone like Howard Dean, a well educated, very successful, polished looking, and articulate person, who should do well in front of the cameras, or someone like him, they risk losing more white male voters. Forget needing a message. Forget qualifications. Like Andre Agassi said: "Image is Everything!" The current Bush proved that point, winning an election based primarily on his family name and money -- the exact same items that have propped him up throughout his mediocre life. And no Democratic candidate no matter how "middle of the road" is going to get the suburban white male Republican voter anyway. But there are enough "other" voters out there to win the 2004 election: Women, African Americans and other minorities, workers, environmentalists, gays, seniors, the swelling unemployed, The Greens, college students, smaller farmers, small business people, and even many military personnel, et. al. All a Democratic nominee has to do is pose these questions: 1) Are you better off now than you were four years ago? 2) Knowing that the Bush Administration lied and mislead everyone including Congress in order to invade Iraq, can you ever trust them again? 3) With almost 3 million jobs lost since Bush took office, how can you be sure your job won't be next? and, 4) What has Bush ever said to convince you that these record deficits can be paid off without severe cuts in government programs that he promised everyone when he ran for office and/or huge tax increases on the middle class? 5) How much are these stupid wars REALLY costing the taxpayers and what would the money have paid for if it had been spent helping people in this country instead?

Of course the Republicans would just "love" for Lieberman to be the candidate of choice because he would be the easiest target. He would also be a perfect target for the white anti-semite, a prime Rush Limbaugh dittohead.

The rules of the game that Cal Thomas views as important that applied to electing Clinton over ten years ago in 1992 don't apply anymore. It might have been understandable that Clinton had to move toward the middle to get elected following eight years of Reagan. But a lot has changed since then. The Bush Administration, considered by most astute observers and columnists to be the most corrupt, secretive, and pro-business of them all, threatening civil liberties and free speech, promoting wars all over the world to benefit their oil and defense industry campaign contributors while soaking everyone for the money except the rich while running up record deficits and unemployment in the process, should be any easy target for any candidate who offers even some semblance of a normal democratic government again. The only problem the Dems face is raising enough money to counteract the Bush propaganda, dirty politics, and lie machine. To do this, we don't need any "wishy-washy" middle-of-the-road mouthpiece.

Please refer to a previous piece on this topic called: The Republican Plot to Derail Dean's Campaign Exposed on our website.

Cal Thomas' column called: Democrats: Walking too much to the left hurts the party appeared in the August 1, 2003 edition of the Detroit Free Press, 11A.

© 2003 Topplebush.com
August 3, 2003