Silk Purse or Sow's Ear

Major Mike

Matt Bai has a fine spin on the demise of the 527 group Americans Coming Together (ACT) in yesterday's NYT Magazine. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21WWLN.html

He seems perplexed about how ACT could've failed in its main mission, which was to unseat GWB through any means necessary.

"Just how it is that ACT failed in this mission is a question no one seems able to answer. After all, ACT exceeded its own goals for voter turnout, and in most of the Democratic urban counties on which it focused, John Kerry received more votes than any Democrat before him."

He goes on to blame Kerry, likely rightfully, for not connecting with the undecideds.

"ACT didn't do much to change the balance in more conservative rural and exurban areas, but then persuading undecided voters was (and always has been) the candidate's job; blaming ACT for the loss of Ohio or Florida would be like firing the Yankees' grounds crew because Derek Jeter failed to get on base."

But he wrongfully concludes that ACT... "In this way, ACT helped to usher us into the post-party world. We are now confronting a period in which the power and the innovation in American politics will reside not in some party headquarters on Capitol Hill but in a decentralized network of grass-roots groups, donors and Internet impresarios, all of whom seem to be increasingly entwined with one another."

And... "In the end, ACT's contribution was to act as a bridge from the last political moment to the next, hastening the chaotic process of democratization -- even without the capital ''D'' that its founders would have preferred."

A couple of problems here. First...this is ostrich time for the Dems...if they are going to believe that they had the machinations in place, the money in place, the "new foundation" in place to win, and the candidate was the only problem, they are fooling themselves. They had the money, but no message. The Red/Blue map screams out to tell even the most simple minded of us, that their messaging is not resonating...no matter how much you want to ignore it. Their "new wave" connections to the choice generation are just impacting on the coasts...in electoral politics, this is not enough.

Second, this is another example of the left leaning MSM using its "unbiased" platform to spin for the left. ACT went under, because aside from raising a lot of money, their smear politics did not connect with decent people who are liberal. Plain and simple. Trying to put a cherry on the demise of ACT is like trying to say the Great Chicago Fire was good because it freed up a lot of real estate. A defeat is a defeat...Analyze it, study it, learn from it...don't sugar coat it...with the help of your MSM friends...oh, on second thought, keep doing what you're doing...it is working for us.

Lastly, ACT is only preceding the Democrat demise, and nice little articles like Matt's will not slow it down. It is precisely that having the money, leading the way in internet use, and possibly having their strongest organization ever, that they could not unseat GWB, that spells the end of the Dems...their best effort is failing and they are losing traction in the process. Nothing succeeds like success...nothing follows failure faster than failure.

The Dems' current disarray is screaming for MSM coverage, not glossy excuse making.