I think clarence page may have voted for dubya!

[dude1394]

A closet republican, methinks.

---------------------
Where are the answers from the wounded Dems?

Published November 24, 2004

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of their fifth defeat out of the last seven presidential elections, Democratic Party leaders are once again arguing, pointing fingers and scratching their heads over how they can win back the red states in the heartland.

It's a pretty sad sight. Having seen more wrestling matches for the soul of the party than I can count, this one reminds me more than ever of a flabby, middle-age guy who is befuddled, after years of taking his wife for granted, that she is running away with a smooth-talking stud from down the street.

I like the Democrats and usually, although not always, support Democratic candidates. I'm a blue state kind of guy and proud of it. Nevertheless, it is easy to look around and see a lot of likely Democratic supporters who think the party has let them down.

For example, exit polls reported 38 percent of union members voted for President Bush, according to CNN. So did 40 percent of voters who have union members in their households. Exit polls also showed Bush received the votes of 42 percent of workers who earn $15,000 to $30,000 and 44 percent of those who earn under $50,000.

And, among other groups in the party's base, Bush won 45 percent of those ages 18 to 29, 44 percent of the Hispanic vote and 11 percent of the black vote. That's up from 8 percent of the black vote in 2000, and even more in battleground states like Ohio (16 percent, up from 7 percent in 2000) and Florida (13 percent, up from 7 percent).

While unmarried women voted for Kerry by a 2-1 ratio, married women tended to vote pretty much like their husbands, overwhelmingly for Bush.

Adding insult to Sen. John Kerry's injuries, Bush also won the votes of 13 percent of self-described liberals and 11 percent of self-described Democrats!

The party needs to take a look at itself, realize that its world has changed and that it is not the hot, young stallion it used to be. Just as it responded to the crises of the Depression and World War II under Franklin D. Roosevelt, building a political dominance that lasted a half century, the Democratic Party must respond to current foreign and domestic crises with answers befitting this new century, not the last one.

First of all, the party must stand for something. It needs, like Samuel Johnson's famous plum pudding, a theme. Roosevelt had "the New Deal." Bush offers "the Ownership Society," which reminds me of Richard M. Nixon's offer of "a piece of the action" to black Americans in response to Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society."

Themes matter. They focus minds, big and small, on creating an agenda that offers hope to voters of a better world.

All of this came to mind as I was watching one of my guilty pleasures, "The Wire," an exceptionally realistic HBO series about Baltimore cops and drug gangsters. Like life, it's a complicated show that produces unexpected nuggets of wisdom.

During a dinner conversation, a detective was asked by his political-consultant girlfriend whether he voted for Kerry or for Bush. Neither, he responded wearily. No matter who wins the White House, he said, nothing changes on the streets where he works. Drugs keep flowing, kids keep dying.

There was more fact than fiction in that exchange. If Democrats, the party of poor people, working people and Baltimore people, are not offering a vision of a better future to drug-ravaged neighborhoods, I wondered, who will?

Significantly, Bush has. His administration assists grass-roots, faith-based leaders like Rev. Eugene Rivers, co-founder of Boston's Ten Point Coalition. An effort by more than 50 local churches to join forces with Boston police, courts and City Hall to combat youth violence, the coalition reduced Boston's juvenile homicide rate to zero in the mid-1990s. It made a difference.

Former Vice President Al Gore favored faith-based programs in his 2000 presidential campaign, but President Bush embraced them, despite liberal critics who complained about possible breaches of church-state separation. I am a 1st Amendment absolutist, but when a program that works can be funded without discriminating against anyone's religious beliefs, that's good enough for me. It's also good enough for poor folks for whom Bush's faith-based initiatives have given Republicans a more compassionate image.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party's response to innovative ideas like school vouchers, charter schools and income-based affirmative action, instead of race-based, has too often resembled classic conservatives, fiercely holding on to past political gains without offering any new alternatives.

No consensus candidate has emerged from liberal and centrist candidates currently jostling each other to replace the Democratic National Committee's chairman at a meeting in February.

Fortunately, there are some rising stars who want to offer voters a pragmatic, what-works agenda suitable for a new century. Americans deserve to have Democrats who offer something more than befuddlement.