The AP quotes ex-Kerry Coordinator Jerry Crawford saying,
"I think the Democratic Party, unlike the Republican Party, has had a historic reluctance to give people a second chance."
They also quote another Democratic Chariman who declares,
"Historically, the Democratic Party has tended to shoot its wounded."
I think these two statements are debatable at the very least, but then the AP joins the fray with this outrageous claim:
"Republicans, on the other hand, are more willing to give their nominees another try."
Well,
historically, Dems seem to be a little more willing than the GOP. Former President Cleveland got another chance after his loss in 1888, William Jennings Bryan was given the opportunity to be a three time loser on the national level, and more recently, Adlai Stevenson had back-to-back shots at Prez in the 1950s.
On the Republican side, Thomas Dewey is the only person who was the failed nominee two cycles in a row, and Nixon the only other losing pick to get a second shot at all (albeit after a much needed 8-year hiatus from the public eye). The AP also cites Bob Dole as an example of the forgiving nature of the Republican Party, but of course he only ran a few times, he received the nomination once. As Dick Gephardt and fellow '88 hopeful Al Gore would attest, you can certainly try for the Democratic nomination as much as you'd like.
It can probably be argued that the parties in their current incarnations and ideologies have only given one man a second chance (Nixon). But I think this shows that neither party has been interested in re-nominating a losing candidate. And besides the last two presidential elections, the losing Dems have had such poor showings it would seem ludicrous to nominate them again.
Furthermore, recent candidates Al Gore and John Kerry have remained outspoken, important members of the party. They haven't been cast out and left for dead. This portrayal of Dems as unprincipled cut-and-runners, roaming from one seemingly electable candidate to the next is laughable and played-out. Kerry, though seen as electable, was also one of the most left-leaning candidates in the primary. And lest we forget, in 2000, George Bush was anointed by party big-wigs more impressed with his war chest and breeding than his character or convictions.
While this is a cliche-filled post, and a rather unimpressive debut for my first ever, I find it shocking and worth mentioning that the AP won't spend five minutes on wiki debunking these claims of the "historically" unforgiving nature of the Democratic Party as compared to those compassionate Republicans. And why are these Dems giving them such choice sound-bytes in the first place?
Comments are closed on this story.