How To Lose Like a Real Democrat

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” enjoyed the brouhaha caused by The New York Times Magazine’s March 12 profile of Governor Mark Warner (D-Virginia). The humdrum piece itself wasn’t controversial; rather, it was the portrait of Governor Warner on the cover that did the trick. As the Times acknowledged, they printed a distorted image of Warner, which made him look like a malignant goof.

(Would they ever offer the same treatment to Times heroes such as Edward Kennedy, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez? We collectively think not.)

Reader Linda McCullough Moore aptly summed up the matter:

The cover photograph of Mark Warner positively leapt across the line dividing photography from cartoonish caricature. What’s that you say? Hillary paid for the photos? Your reporting may be impartial, but with photos like that, the words don’t stand a chance.

Well put, we think. And, to be downright honest, dear reader, we find the Times’ decision to print such a noxious photograph strange. Governor Warner—for those of you who don’t know him—is a Democratic moderate, the kind of fellow who, unlike, say, Howard Dean, actually has a shot to win a few red states and become president. Why must the eminences at the Gray Lady go after him like this?

This all seems particularly odd because we distinctly recall that the last presidential election witnessed Democrats voting for John Kerry in massive numbers—even though they esteemed him about as much as a scorching case of herpes. Plumping for Senator Kerry was more like casting aspersions on George W. Bush. It was voting for Goebbels instead of Hitler.

Yet when a moderate comes along—one who is actually palatable to the majority of Americans who find themselves in the middle—the mainstream press must attack, attack, attack. If one weren’t paying attention, one might think that the mainstream media are actually involved in some sort of conservative conspiracy. Boy, doesn’t that make us sound a bit too much like The Nation Eric Alterman?

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have only one explanation for this state of affairs: The Democrats have morphed into congenital losers. Irate at the Iraq War, party-line Dems can’t figure out how to woo those who don’t read MoveOn.org religiously.

It’s as if broad swaths of the party thinks this country is made up of tofu-gobbling Indigo Girls fans. Ask the typical Democratic Underground reader, and he might tell you that prime American values are lesbian poetry and Cherry Garcia.

How else do you explain the complexly named Wally Marzano-Lesnevich’s missive to the Paper of Record regarding Governor Warner? It reads as follows:

In your article, we learn that Warner is against gay marriage, for the death penalty and for parental notification in abortion. When are Democrats going to stop looking to Democrats who want to run in Republican clothing? President Bush won two national elections not by appealing to the other party, but by appealing to the base.

Brilliant, isn’t it? Good ole’ Wally actually thinks that pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, anti-parental notification Democrats will be the true winners on the national electoral stage. Perhaps good ole’ Wally has forgotten about this guy named Bill Clinton. He proved rather successful, didn’t he?

But, hey, let’s take this a step farther. Why should Democrats run “moderates” such as Maxine Waters when they could get some real liberals on the ticket? We think the following amalgamation of views will greatly aid the Democrats’ chances for victory in 2008:

1) Forced abortions every three years.
2) Abolish the prison system.
3) Make being a white man illegal.
4) Continue to support the loveable scamps in Hamas.
5) End the so-called “War on Terror” by stopping what really motivates terrorists: Economic inequality.
6) Make Noam Chomsky the prospective Secretary of Defense.
7) Compel all college students to be women’s studies majors and black studies minors.
8) Outlaw capitalism.

Perhaps dear old Wally thinks that’s a winning strategy. The only problem is: Where do you find a candidate with those views? How about you ask 90 percent of academics?