The purpose of all military action is to destroy the enemies will to fight. What the Bush campaign has already accomplished is to make the Kerry campaign question itself, which means its losing faith, which means - the ranks are beginning to break and 'the center will not hold'.

It takes a special kind of leader to hold his troops in line when the whiff of fear gets into the air. Fear is contagious and once it gets started, its a bitch to stop. This is Kerrys test, We shall see how he does.

This post kind of implies that your advice and Marshall's are linked somehow. That's not the case. Marshall is whistling past the graveyard saying the Dems fears are not legit. Your comments from 2002 show why the Democrats are heading toward another debacle.

The Democrats are only failing on two levels, strategically and tactically.

Kerry the candidate is as good as done. Barring some radical unforseen event, Kerry will continue to fade and we'll all be placing bets on Bush's margin of victory two months from now. Kerry's failures are well known, and really there isn't much left that the campaign or the DNC can do to salvage the situation. Kerry isn't the kind of guy who can stop on a dime and reinvent himself overnight. It simply isn't going to happen, even with an army of John Marshalls giving pep talks.

The greater problem is that Democrats can't admit who they really are and be accepted by America. Why didn't they run Dean, the guy they really wanted? Even they knew he could never win. What does it say about a political party when they admit that their own preferred candidate doesn't stand a chance in hell of being elected?

It's easy to be fooled by the media, but look around. Republicans own this country. White house, Congress, governorships, state legislatures. This isn't about the Democrats being demoralized, it's about them being rejected wholesale by the American people and refusing to examine why or even acknowledge it.

It might do them some good to *start* panicking.

Yankee,

I didn't mean to make that implication at all. If my advice and Marshall's are in any way linked, it's only that the Kerry Campaign won't listen to either of us.

Stephen,

I have a suggestion for little contest ycu might run. My wife thinks that there needs to be a pithy name to counter the 'chickenhawk' label - you know, anyone who supports war withhout having been in one - a fovorite of the Kerry crowd.

What do you call a person who denigrates the very people who allow him to "sleep safely in a warm bed because others are willing to do violence on his behalf"?

'What do you call a person who denigrates the very people who allow him to "sleep safely in a warm bed because others are willing to do violence on his behalf"?'

A Democrat, or a liberal, or John Kerry.

'What do you call a person who denigrates the very people who allow him to "sleep safely in a warm bed because others are willing to do violence on his behalf"?'
-----------

Some bloggers were floating the term 'turtledove' a while ago...

The pubbies do not own Congress.

I don't have my judges. The Gang of 41 can do what they want at will, but chose not to stop the budget process.

Mr Marshall is more correct than he knows or cares to admit.

"As a group they seem to have a great tendency toward becoming disheartened, turning on their candidate, doubting his strategy, doubting his advisors, and so forth. Unfortunately, the candidates and advisors have an equal tendency to be open to that kind of fretting."

America's enemies would feast on people like this.

This election is not going to be a Reagan/Modale, Bush/Dukakis romp. My thinking is that it will be a Clinton/Dole like contest.

The Dems can't get over their anger at Bush, but they can't deliver more than anger. That's not going to ever convince the unconvinced, because they have to be angry first, which they aren't. Second, the unconvinced shy away from frothing partisans like the plague.

August was the beginning of the end for Kerry starting with his Convention Speech. He admitted it himself when he wanted a weekly debate. Who asks for such things? The loser.

The Democratic Party is, above all, an institution. It's ideals have some ideological and historical basis, but at the end of the day, they are very malleable.

In other words, the DNC as an institution is in no real danger. There are always going to be 2 major parties. Both parties change their positions to maintain an adequate portion of the electorate.

However, in this particular case, the GOP has positioned itself very well as the party of security- which is an extremely powerful hand to play.

Bizarrely, the Democrats responded to this problem by nominating someone completely unelectable, regardless of the times. I think I have a pretty good handle on politics... but Kerry's nomination is something I will never understand.

The Democrats are only failing on two levels, strategically and tactically.

Somebody's channeling Norman Schwarzkopf. I love it.

This reminds me of a quote by the late Harold Ickes:

"I get very tired of the smug self - satisfaction, the holier - than - thou attitude, the sneering meticulousness of men and women with whose outlook on economic and social questions I often regretfully find myself in accord. They rush to the aid of any liberal victor, and then proceed to stab him in the back when he fails to perform the mental impossibility of subscribing unconditionally to their dozen or more conflicting principles. They cannot lead, they will not follow, and they refuse to cooperate."

Harold Ickes (1874 - 1952) American administrator & politician

In other words, the DNC as an institution is in no real danger. There are always going to be 2 major parties. Both parties change their positions to maintain an adequate portion of the electorate.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Whigs once felt the same way.

Just remember, in the Iowa caucuses we were all told that Dean had it wrapped up, that he had the best ground game and he had the heart of the party and all the money.

The Iowa Democrat voters smiled politely, wore those goofy orange 'Dean' caps. Pollsters got lots of solid Dean support answers.Pundits patted themselves on the back.

And despite all of that, the Iowa voters went in and voted for someone else.

Its my guess, that we have alot of that going on this year. No one wants to stick their neck out in public when the atmosphere is so charged, but I think the support for Bush is much more solid than it ever was for Kerry. Dick Morris - ( I know.....) had a great breakdown of the polls last night where he pointed out the the Bush presidency has solid (+80%!) support by people who were voting for Bush, but for people who who were voting for Kerry, there were deeply divided on every single issue(except that Kerry is not Bush, and that was only by a plurality).

I think we are going to see a lot of people sitting on their hands on the Democrat side this year. The anger thing can only get your base energized, but it wont help you with independants and it wont help you get Republicans and there are alot more 9/11 democrats than many people want to believe, including themselves.

The Democrats are much more of a "coalition" style party and the only part of the coalition that I think Kerry has a lock on are the "moonbats". I dont think Kerry's got a solid lock on any other component of the traditional Democrat core.

This whole RNC convention is designed to do one thing and thats strip the Democrat core out of their party. And from what I've seen so far, its doing exactly that.

The Democrat Party is gone.

It is anti-capitalism and anti-war.

I might survive one or the other. It can't survive both.

—==—

Steal this sig:

George Bush never called me “baby killer”.

There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

New Soldier

What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.

The Ads: Video links

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Whigs once felt the same way. "

I mean in the forseeable future. Think about how many platforms have been submitted under the "Democrat" banner.

My advice to the Kerry campaign is don't make Zell (and others) any madder.

The Democrats don't believe in the American Idea any longer. If they don't recapture that believe, they are doomed.

Personally, I look forward to that day with some sense of ugency because until we finally put a stake in the heart of the anti-American vampire controlling the Left, we can not resolve the growing conflict among those who still believe in America.

Until the Democrat party is done and gone and replaced by something else, we can't in earnest start the debate between the Schwarzeneggers and the Ralph Reeds.

Most committed Democrats are living in a bubble it seems to me. They simultaneously disdain the majority of Americans and yet believe that those same Americans should follow them because they know better. It's the sort of simplistic 'two America' view that they would deride Bush for, yet they've never quite been able to grasp that most of us see right through it. Apropos is my recent post on how the Democrats never break 50% of the popular vote except in extraordinary circumstances. Maybe because they keep running candidates whose sense of entitlement to the office of so odiferously obvious.

With a slight modification ..

"This is one of the worst things about Democrats, as a group they seem to have a great tendency toward becoming disheartened, turning on their leaders, doubting his strategy, doubting his advisors, and so forth."

Sounds like what I've seen in the past 3+ years. I'm glad to see that Josh sees it too.