Joan of Arc Democrats

[TayTay]

I am feeling incredibly good this week due to a happy convergence of events that have left me nearly giddy. (I am congenitally unable to continue this level of happiness, it is unbecoming for many reasons, some of them regional in nature.) But, as I am in such a good mood, I am going to break a rule and repost something from a thread already in the JK forum. I just want a "What do you think" response.

This was written in response to another thread about how awful some of the DU posters are vis-a-vis Kerry and the unfair nature of ABBing in general. Let me know what you think.

ABB in the last election was ABN in a prior one (Anybody but Nixon) and so forth. This is a normal part of the political process. No candidate is going to be well-known enough at first to sweep the nation. Gov Dean was certainly someone who came out of the political obscurity of Vermont to mount a very credible campaign for the White House. But it was not enough and the base of voters he was appealing to were not sufficient. (There is an argument to be made that he was a single-issue candidate that could not survive the dips and flows of the politics surrounding that issue. His candidacy did not really survive the capture of Saddam Hussein in Dec 2003.)

ABB, in it's various forms, is as normal to politics as Mom, flags and kissing babies. It is only in the 'Joan of Arc' wing of the Democratic Party that anything different is expected. Joan, a dark horse candidate who arises with the apparent blessing of God goes on to fight the good fight, do incredible things that only a holy warrior could do, then gets captured and burnt at the stake. Sigh! Romantic but impractical. I have seen this side of liberals all my life and while I have found it funny I also implore them to look at it from Joan's point of view once in a while. True, France got liberated, but she did not survive the politics of her trial long enough to enjoy it. But it was a holy crusade and the liberals of France, who were not burnt at the stake themselves, didn't mind that Joan was toasted out of honor, integrity and commitment to principle.

The honor of France was a lovely thing. Perhaps it would also have been a lovely thing had the warriors of France found a way to save their heroine and not just written condolence cards to the family. (Dear Arc's. Sorry about Joan. Pity that, she was a lovely girl. Very forceful and committed. We regret losing a loyal and God-chosen soldier like her. You'll be happy to know that we have replaced her and the struggle goes on. Yours in liberation, France.)

Joan of Arc Democrats. Hmmm, I like that.

[JI7]

1. i understand what you are saying

but i don't think that's true of many of the Kerry bashers. i think they are just angry that whoever they supported didn't become the nominee so they bashed Kerry during the campaign and continue to.

[whometense]

2. I like this, actually.

It states something I've been observing: the strain of "holier-than-thou" that some dems attach to certain candidates. It was Howard Dean through the second half of 2003, and some DUers now seem to have attached the halo to Wes Clark's head.

It's funny that repugs seem to have no trouble supporting candidates who are, ahem, shall we say, flawed people as long as they toe the party line, while dems fall on their best people like pirhanas and chew them to bits because they don't measure up to some godlike standard.

I've been puzzling over this for 2 years now. In John Kerry's case, it's as if the truth - that he is an actually moral, principle-driven person - is too hard for even the left to comprehend. It's like he's outside their ken, and so they have to destroy him.

I'm getting off your topic here, though. Apologies ;-). I find this subject fascinating, distressing, and baffling. I completely agree that the ABB (ABN, ABR) phenomenon is not a rare one at all. And your Joan of Arc (heh. I just wrote John of Arc. Go figure.) story is darkly hilarious.

Ok, so I need some of your giddiness to rub off on me. I should have watched the Sox yesterday instead of Bolton.

One last thought - and sorry this is so disjointed - you've got me pre-coffee - I noticed that every time John stands up and says something tough the left-wing echo chamber reverberates with cries of "Too little too late". I defy anyone to watch him questioning Bolton and say he lacks passion. I loved the comment Withywindle made about waiting for John's laser eyes to reduce Bolton to a pile of ash.

[karynnj]

3. What's ironic is that Kerry may be the closest to a real Joan of Ark

Not, thankfully, in terms of being burned at the stake, but he has followed his conscience at the risk of seeing his political potential go up in smoke. (I liked in Going Up river, when Bob Kerrey noted that you could lead an antiwar movement or have a traditional political career. Kerry had to know that he risked the goal he had from childhood in speaking out. ) But, he obviously has the sense to take this kind of risk only when the potential gain or the need is great enough and to do it in an intelligent way.

Reading that he liked the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories as a kid back this as well. (I liked the story that he went from Norway to England and bicycled to Sherwood Forrest to camp there when he was 16. Although if the RW got hold of it would they have claimed that he even liked outlaws and terrorists of earlier centuries)

[ginnyinWI]

7. he has been figuratively burned many times

Hasn't he. If he were doing this to become famous or powerful, he would have quit long ago! It didn't just start with this campaign, it started in 1971. I think it cost him his first marriage.

Reading that he liked King Arthur and Robin Hood is another reason to believe that he is guided by his own set of principles and values, not popular opinion.

[paulk]

4. I don't think the people you're describing are even "Dems"

it's the same group of asshats, at least here on DU, that is always threatening to leave the party if they don't get their way.

On the other hand, "Joan of Arc Asshats" doesn't have quite the same ring to it...

[GRLMGC]

8. I like "Joan of Arc Asshats"

:)

[ginnyinWI]

5. I think they want a political world that doesn't exist

Kerry knows the practical realities, but these "liberally pure" individuals believe that if your cause is pure, that everything will somehow work out your way. A far-left guy like Kucinich should be able to become president, in that world. Now I love what Kuchinch says, bless his heart, but the political reality is that he won't ever become president.

Kerry may just be too centrist for this bunch. Well, then I am too centrist, too. Like, I can see a need for a military, and for going to war when there is a very good reason (not for oil!). I remember the cold war. Most political issues are not clearly black or white, but they try to make them so.

A lot of these DUers don't want to look deeply into the issues. They want to stay on an emotional level and just gang together and attack--yeah that feels real good, but it is destructive! I'm not surprised that the freepers go back to Free Republic and laugh at them. I'm laughing too.

So I suppose it will continue this way: Dems will continue to put up moderately left candidates, and the DUers will continue to howl about what sellouts they are. The only candidates they revere are the ones who haven't really been tested: Wes Clark, Howard Dean for example. What do they really know about how Clark would be as president? He was a four star general for crying out loud--do they think he's a peacenik? They don't want to be confused with facts. And by all accounts Dean is further to the right than Kerry--but then again, that is based on facts. And facts just don't cut it when you are being emotional.

[JI7]

6. even Kucinich isn't all that liberal

he opposed abortion rights for a long time and he supports laws including amendments against flag burning . Kerry is more liberal than Kucinich on these issues.

and i don't believe Kerry being centrist ist eh problem as Kerry is more liberal than the people they tend to support usually as you say about a couple of them.

[whometense]

9. Then what do you think it is

about Kerry that sets them off? I can't figure it out, myself.

[JI7]

10. he beat the person they supported in the Primary

and he is a true liberal.

[whometense]

11. So,

even "liberals" hate liberals?????

My poor head! :crazy:

[TayTay]

13. Don't be too confused

It's that IWR vote. (Hey, that vote was in Oct 2002. Kerry suddenly got an opponent in that race. Somebody got the sigs and ran purely as a protest against the IWR vote. Got 20,000 votes statewide too! More than in the City of Cambridge. Hmm, must have had some Newton and Lexington mixed in.)

Funny, but I emphatically do NOT see Kerry as a Joan of Arc Dem. I see him as someone who knows the value of fighting and of forming alliances and getting real work done. I see some of the libs as wanting Joan of Arc Dems who will die for principle. Which is not very polite, IMHO. (They should do it first. Hot stake, cool night, full moon, see how they like it first.)

[karynnj]

14. That he is adamantly himself

I think some of those they like pander to them. I think Dean, Clark and Kuchinich kind of indulge them in their fantasy that they agree with them in total and will lead them. One thing I respect about Kerry is that though he may chose different things to speak about to different audiences, I can think of no case where the substance of his position changed. (I read almost the same answer on why he's for civil unions, but not gay marriage in a Catholic newspaper and in the Advocate. He said it differently, but reason was the same.)

I think Wes Clark may be somewhat an example of talking to the audience. With no record, he could move either direction. His support of Michael Moore's calling Bush a deserter was an example of this. They think he's to the left of Kerry although he admits to voting for Reagan, Nixon and Bush 1 and is on tape in 2001 (before 911) praising GWB. I don't think Kerry wasted a nano second before deciding he was against these guys.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

15. Sometimes I think...

they just want to gripe. Methinks there is a pathological segment that wants subconsciously for Dems to keep losing so they can keep griping.

Given the current crop of radical Rethug candidates, for anyone to gripe against Gore (still!) and Kerry is just unbelievably crass and practically suicidal. They must have a death wish.

Pointing out flaws is one thing, but the kind of arrant carping that goes on here re Dem candidates (who in my opinion are good even in absolute terms, not just better against the abyssmal opposition) is completely inexplicable otherwise...

[TayTay]

16. Thanks and welcome to the JK Forum

I have been a bit busy the lat few days. My pardon if this welcome is late.

Good points. I have often felt that way myself. Of course, as a former believer in curses and the nobility in the whole Sisyphus myth (ahm, Boston Red Sox thing combined with just way way too many academics around these parts) this theory bites. Winning doesn't destroy our soul. It may just save it.

[whometense]

18. hahahhaha

The Red Sox leapt to my mind too.

[whometense]

17. You make an excellent point!

Bellyaching is so much fun (and so much easier than getting to work).

And welcome!!!!

[ginnyinWI]

12. It's only the perception of left or right that matters to them,then,

I'm guessing. Is it all a matter of what they perceive the candidate as? Do they judge them just by what style they use when they campaign--I don't know. Does the person need to be some kind of underdog, to get their support? Cause I know that Dean was an "outsider", as well as Clark. Maybe that is the reason.

Whatever the reason, I don't think it's based on a lot of fact. And it seems that no matter how many of us go onto these threads and try to supply these people with facts, they always think they know better. I will have people replying to me to refute some tiny little point, just to be refuting and assuring themselves that they still know best. They stubbornly won't concede an inch of their world view.
They are as narrow-minded as my repub dad is.

Someone wrote (Lakoff I think) that people vote for candidates they identify with. So maybe for a lot of DUers, Kerry was too prominent and successful for them, or too rich or privileged, for them to identify with and therefore trust.