I actually like this quote a great deal, and think the Times, for once, is spot on…
“Party officials described the draft document as focusing on the 2024 election as a whole, but not on the presidential campaign — which is something like eating at a steakhouse and then reviewing the salad.”
—-The New York Times in a piece called “Democrats’ 2024 Autopsy Is Described as Avoiding the Likeliest Cause of Death.”
The Democratic Party, in addition to being exposed as a the real foe of democracy domestically, advocates for open borders, puppet Presidencies, using the justice system as a political weapon, cheating in women’s sports, racial discrimination in hiring and, lately, communism, also has revealed itself as a party of abject cowards. Its latest favorite tactic is walking out of Congress when they don’t like what the majority is likely to do, but what the Times describes is astoundingly craven. The party’s analysis of why it lost the White House in 2024 is going to avoid what everyone knows are the reasons it lost
That, my friend, is a cover-up, but it is even worse than that. It is signature significance for an organizational culture that is so infected with “It isn’t what it is” reactions to unpleasant reality that it is even incapable of honestly addressing its own problems. How can anyone trust a party so self-hobbled to manage anything, lead anywhere, accomplish any goal or mission? Why would anyone trust such a party? How can you justify belonging to a party—believing in a party—that even lies to itself?
From the article:
Producing a tough-minded public review of a national electoral defeat would be a politically delicate exercise under any circumstance, given the need to find fault with the work and judgment of important party leaders and strategists. It is particularly fraught for the new D.N.C. chairman, Ken Martin, who promised a post-election review from his first day on the job but whose first few months in the role have been plagued by infighting and financial strains.
“We are not interested in second-guessing campaign tactics or decisions of campaign operatives,” said Jane Kleeb, the Nebraska Democratic chairwoman, who heads the association of Democratic state chairs and is a close ally of Mr. Martin. “We are interested in what voters turned out for Republicans and Democrats, and how we can fix this moving forward.”
Gee, that seems like an easy assignment. Let’s see:
- Don’t nominate a demented candidate for President.
- Don’t use him as puppet manipulated by unelected hard left ideologues.
- Don’t pick agency heads, Supreme Court judges and VPs according to gender and skin tone rather than, you know, ability…
- Don’t run campaigns that avoid letting the public know what a candidate believes.
- Don’t nominate babbling, cackling fools and knuckleheads to lead the country.
- Don’t call anyone who doesn’t agree with you a fascist, a racist and/or a sexist.
- Actually make Presidential candidates earn their nomination by winning primaries and open convention balloting.
Pathetic.
Here’s a gift link to the amazing article…
Ethics Alarms 
it sounds to me like the Democratic party is not interested in producing an actual analysis of why they lost. I think that this is going to be a big, elaborate, high sounding report that justifies the conclusion they already reached, which is that their ticket lost last year because of racism and sexism becoming prevalent in the United States to a greater degree among various demographic blocks that did not go their way this time out or did not go their way.
There are still far too many people who believe that too many people voted against Harris because she was a woman or a woman of color rather than that she was a babbling fool who couldn’t finish a speech without making a fool of herself. There are also still far too many people who don’t understand or don’t want to understand that anger over the Dobbs decision wasn’t going to carry the day. There are also still far too many people who bought into the lies that the border was secure and inflation was something that would pass.
the fact of the matter is that these are all lies of self-deception. The administration saw how bad Harris was and after the first year she was shoved into the background. I guess they figured if they didn’t talk about it everyone would just forget it. The fact of the matter also is that large numbers of young women voters were not going to show up and tip the scales in the name of abortion. I also think they knew that or should have known that. The fact is they also knew that the lies about inflation and the border just were not landing with enough people.
Of course they aren’t even mentioning the gigantic self-inflicted wound of running Biden a second time when they shouldn’t have run him the first time.
The one theme that runs through all of this is that lies just don’t do it anymore. You have to have the wisdom to see the truth, the intelligence to know how to handle the truth, the will to execute the plan, and the strength to actually make it work. The current Democratic party has none of these things.
[Steve-O-] “lies just don’t do it anymore. You have to have the wisdom to see the truth, the intelligence to know how to handle the truth, the will to execute the plan, and the strength to actually make it work.” Amen! May this prove to be true… not that I’m seeing an abundance of wisdom, intelligence, will, and strength in the political sphere lately. One can hope!
Something I’m quite curious about Harris since there is the topic of mindless cackling: what’s the insider take when she was a DA? How about as attorney general.
Hillary Clinton was clearly intelligent. The cackling in her case was a tell for when she didn’t want to lie. Hillary’s undoing was her lack of self awareness.
Not so with Harris. She thoroughly came off as a pure dolt. Which makes you wonder if she rode the DEI train all the way. I’ve seen it in my professional life. Guilty white liberals see no issue covering for DEI candidates.
My follow up to that, that I failed to include:
What was she like as an actual trial lawyer? It’s not like you get to use a teleprompter during a trial. I’m just having such a hard time squaring the cackling mindless interviews she’s had with someone doing voir dire, opening statements, direct and cross questions, arguing for or against objections, and closing. You can be covered by others when it comes to writing a brief. But not so at trial. Did she ever take a trial? Did she just sit there or participant?
Her site said she tried hundreds of serious felonies. She herself said in an interview she tried about 50. She really only tried about 8 in Almeida County and 2 in San Francisco. She was no William Hodgman (who would have tried the OJ Simpson case if he hadn’t collapsed) and no Thomas Dewey.
[From your host: This unauthorized comment appear to be a long one; I’m not going to digest it, because it only encourages him.]
[From your host: WOW! Two in a row! Impressive but futile and stupid...]
I have one , more I would add to this list: don’t use the justice system as a political weapon. I believe that Trump won the primary supimply because of the indictments against him. A HUGE motivation for the American right is to do things that the left says they can’t.
Democrats: You can’t have a semi auto rifle.
Result: the AR-15 is the most owned gun.
Democrats: You can’t drive lifted diesel trucks that spew black smoke.
Result: Lifted duiesel trucks are a right wing status symbol.
Democrats: We won’t let you vote for Donald Trump.
Result: well here we are…