Execute The Mentally Retarded

Don't yell at me. That's what Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times says. If only Democrats would only execute mentally retarded people found guilty of murder, why they'd win more elections. It might make them feel icky, but until the Democrats are ready to compromise their principles, they're going to be stuck in the minority.

"I wish that winning were just a matter of presentation. But it's not. It involves compromising on principles. Bill Clinton won his credibility in the heartland partly by going home to Little Rock during the 1992 campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally disabled convict named Ricky Ray Rector," writes Kristof.

"There was a moral ambiguity about Mr. Clinton's clambering to power over Mr. Rector's corpse. But unless Democrats compromise, they'll be proud and true and losers."

His suggestions: support the blurring of the line between church and state and encourage the faith-based programs that prosyletize with our taxpayer dollar. (Don't you DARE help a poor, black woman get health planning that involves a reference to condoms as protection against disease and pregnancy. But, sure, give her a little soup and a fundamentalist sermon to go with it.)

Also, stop getting so uptight over the Confederate flag, stop moaning about the policemen gunned down by criminals with once-illegal Uzis (and give their widows a Bible to comfort them, I suppose), don't worry if those Uzis get into the hands of terrorists, and if a Supreme Court nominee of Bush's might set the Court back ten years, don't put up a fuss because people will claim you're an obstructionist.

Is all of that idiotic or is it just me?

Supporting our police is a winning stance with mainstream America. (And every police organization in the country is furious that Bush is letting those automatic weapons get back on the streets. Every time a cop or innocent person is killed -- press conference. That's not taking cynical advantage of the situation -- that's standing up for our men and women in blue.)

Ignoring the spread of the Confederate Flag -- which causes Southern states business and is deeply offensive to our core -- is sure to dismay black voters, one of the few dependable groups the Dems can claim. They already feel slighted and taken for granted. Imagine if the Dems told them objecting to a racist symbol that only appears on most state flags because the Southerners objected to desegregating schools was a waste of time.

Objecting to government funds going to Moonies, Scientologists, Falun Gong and other minor religions or cults would play well for traditional Dems, fundamentalist Christians and many others. (Lots of major religions are leery of gov't funding propping them up.)

Finally, and most importantly, the Democrats did not lose the election because they refused to compromise their principals. That's absurd.

Bush NEVER compromises his core principles and that's exactly what 51% of the population admires about him, even when they disagree with some of those principles.

Kerry lost because he DID compromise his core principles, during the campaign and during his career. There is no way to justify his stance on gay marriage (just call it "civil unions" and give them all the same rights but don't use that word?) as anything other than cynical politics. There is no way to explain his voting against that $87 billion funding for the war other than cynical politics. (Kerry was trying to innoculate himself against the peace-now Deaniacs.)

Compromising core principles is EXACTLY what's WRONG with the Democrats. Republicans never do it so why would anyone think it's a formula for success?