So unlike after 9/11 and the Iraq war, when many in our party gladly went along with the GOP for the sake of "national unity", are we going to stand up unified and resist the GOP this time?  All we need is a couple dems to step and say "you know school vouchers sound like a good idea" to allow the GOP to jam their failed ideas down America's throat.

Go to the Heritage Foundations web site to find out what they will do if we are not unified this time...

Everything they want to do needs to be questioned and contested, not only for the suffering people of the Gulf but for all Americans.  I think this is the moment of truth for the dems...are we going to stand up and be a viable national party or forever be relegated to a minority party status evermore.

Aha. Is not the key to not being in minority status is to keep in mind some kind of majority in everything you have in your "program." Getting out of minority means getting a majority, very simple.

are we going to stand up unified and resist the GOP this time?

Unified in what?

In the Dem blogosphere alone, I see evidence that there are many little groups that have differing ideas of what make this majority, or what they think will make this majority, and then there are even those lovely groups that seem ready to form their own little third party because they simply despise what America has become, can't bear the thought of what their fellow Americans are like, because of what TV they watch or what religion they ascribe to, or whatever.

What I am saying is that currently we have: The Balkans Democratic party! Rainbow broken down into separate spectrums by some new ager's crystal, absolutely no coalition, as in: I don't wanna be in a party with them people, they're Republican lite, or I don't want to be with them people, they're troglodyte Christians.

And in opposition, we have: Rove makes message, people stay on message. Rove says you can talk now Dobson, he talks; Rove says shut up Dobson, Dobson stews but has no where else to go. Pat Robertson does not whine about "when is the GOP going to stop taking us for granted, and push our program," nor does he go off and form the equivalent of a Green party. He votes for the GOP and works behind the scenes to change it. Our radicals on the other hand, seem to think they can win a majority with minority "in your face, up yours"?

Dems are not unified in much of anything, as evidenced every day in the blogosphere. Sounds to me like we have a socialist wing and a capitalist wing, and a we-must-fight-terrorism wing vs. terrorism-is-a-lie-created by the Bushies wing, and an anti-Patriot Act wing, also supported by libertarians, and a somewhat-pro-Patriot-Act wing concerned about terrorism, a withdraw-now wing vs. stay-the-course wing, etc.

We are still simply the "anti-Bush" party that Kerry lost enough middle votes with to lose. That's the only thing that unifies. There's no there there. It's a bunch of minorities fighting each other.

Michael Scheuer pegged it here in "One Unhappy Republican:

Fortunately for America, the Reid-and-Dean-led Democrats are irrelevant to our decision. They are too busy describing U.S. soldiers as Nazis and keeping the shackles on their slave empire of one-issue groups long enough to lose the presidency in 2008.

Mr. "Anonymous" of the CIA Osama task force hates the Bushies, and is looking for something else, but Dems do not have what he wants.

The way it looks now to me, the only one who will benefit if Bush screws up Katrian reconstruction is: John McCain.

Bush has his lowest approval ratings ever and Dems do not benefit from it because all they offer is: the Balkans.  The much vaunted glory of the democratic/Democratic blogosphere is also its balkanization. GOP bloggers stay much more unified, "on message."

I see only two ways to get a majority back: go for votes in the middle, or if you want more ideological than that form a new strongly-libertarian-on-personal issues and stay-out-of-culture-wars-issues coalition with libertarian conservatives. To do the latter, one must give up on the social engineering plans and go more pro-small-business et. al., and have a few Sister Souljah moments with radicals, like Clinton did. Funny to do the former, you have to do the same thing! But no, the DLC is evil, no Republican lite fur us, we just know that if we revive the tax-and-spend big-Federal-government-dream that a new socialist majority will rise to the barricades out of the ashes. Believe it and it will be true? :-)

Nice semi-rant art...

We have lost our souls on the left.  We used to be the party of equality.  Equality as people and equality in the law.  The GOP is an elitist party both culturally and monetarily.  They feel they should be the caregivers in a "daddy state".  They don't stand for equality.  Equality is the force that can bring all the colors of the spectrum of the left into focus and make it a beam of blinding white light.

Why were the people left in NOLA after Katrina ignored?  Why do corporations and their money have a higher level of rights then the people who will have their wages slashed by the suspension of Davis-Bacon?  Why are credit cards companies given more rights then the average American's right to file for Bankruptcy protection when they face catastrophic hardships?

The rights of the people deserve at least the same amount protections as any other class of rights.  I don't believe that the left can't put aside specific policy differences and stand up, united, and say "the people running our government have abdicated their role as people who run a government of the people, by the people and for the people".  And even with all the differences on the left I don't understand why we can't agree on just that simple message.

I guess I live somewhere over the rainbow.  I agree with much of what you said but I keep on hoping we on the left can put aside our differences and make it a place where all the colors to merge into the blinding white light of truth...and equality for all people.  And in the aftermath of Katrina the other side is being exposed for what they are, uncaring oligarchs who any care about themselves and their wealth.  And we can't mount a unified criticism now, we never will...

Americans are proud of their independence, it is deep in the culture. The Democratic party carries a label that says "nanny state," i.e., you pay the taxes, and we will spend your money for you and tell you how you should live.

The American public had their chance to walk away from one of the biggest "nanny state" programs ever, this year...social security.  Their answer was a resounding no.  And in their reaction to Katrina everyone was asking where our government was.  So they don't like the big government tax and spend "nanny state" yet are looking for it in their times of need.  And the more we rely on a "daddy state" to be caregivers the more independence we lose.  Maybe the American people don't like a "nanny state" either but they want the safety net of one.

Some of the catchphrases you use in your comment are exactly the ones that scare people about Dems wanting to create a nanny state. A party sticking up for "the people." Many Americans think: what people? I'm not one of those people! I am my own person. My grandfather was his own person--he got on a boat with $5 in his pocket and made something of himself.

I'm not sure art...which catchphrases are you referring to?  The one I use over and over is equality.  Equality has an inherent meaning of fairness.  Everyone is entitled to the same rights and therefore have the same chance to succeed like your grandfather did and in my case my dad.  Is the symbolism of equality a scary thing to Americans?  Are we that insecure to think that if everybody has an equal chance that we might not be able to enjoy what we already have?  Yes it is a class thing.  The rich have got what they got, great for them.  I don't begrudge anyone's success.  I am in business to make money for myself, I am a capitalist.  But shame on them rigging the system which denies everyone the same opportunity, to ensure they not only can keep what they got but ensure they have a leg up on the rest of the people in the future.  

Maybe this kind of frank talk about the real and obvious lack of equality in this country scares the American people.  But truth be told, as much as it angers me...our society is inherently and intentionally, unfair and unequal.  But, to me, there is no defending laws and policies which perpetuate the inequality...

:-)

congratulations. after reading this post, andrew sullivan saw fit to create a new award in your name! the award is for bloggers admitting the faults of their own party. so...good job? i guess...

Libertine

With respect, Social Security is the opposite of the nanny state and it is why the Republicans can't kill it.  It is a social insurance program.  If you work and earn money you pay in to it.  Everyone has an "owners" interest in Social Security the rich as well as the poor.  This is true even though it is not a pension but a generational transfer programs.  Then when you reach a certain age everyone gets some payment from Social Security.  If Democrats could structure programs to either get everyone to feel an owner, a genuine ownership society, or use the market to achieve our goals we will ultimately prevail.

What Democrats have to do, and I think this will be unpopular, is dump the social idea that government can engineer utopian results, but liberal results, the liberal programs of the New Deal, the New Frontier and even the Great Society are doable.

Democrats should keep in mind that that was ultimately a debacle of their own making.

I was wondering if or when somebody would bring up that little detail. I guess most Dems would just as soon ignore such inconvenient facts. Nevertheless, the DHS did then become the creation and charge of this administration.

I am not saying that it is right or wrong that this kind of thing is happening.

Sure sounds like it.

I am saying that GOP blogosphere rarely criticizes their own this way!

Arlen Spector (repeatedly). John McCain (repeatedly). Whatshername from Washington and the one from Rhode Island. Etc. Etc. RINO. See NRO and other outlets like that.

The GOP blogosphere criticizes their own senators early and often.

When they are unhappy, they criticize in more respectful ways.

Asserted but not proven.

What that means to me is that the active blogosphere base is not happy with the party's leaders.

INDEED! I wonder why that is?

We won't be able to send a unified message out until there is more respect for the party leaders from inside, and tolerance for more variety in those leaders.

Or they are replaced with people who don't suck.

You don't see Dean calling Lieberman or Biden a jerk but many in the blogosphere think they are doing him a favor by doing so.

I don't care if it does Dean any favors or not. Lieberman is a twit, and I was willing to give Biden some points, but I withdraw it: Biden is a hopeless gasbag.

To quote Matthew above: I think I should point out that despite the large role the DHS bait-and-switch and the outrageous treatment of Max Cleland now plays in liberal mythology, Democrats should keep in mind that that was ultimately a debacle of their own making. The entire DHS concept was cooked up initially as a Democratic Party political ploy and never made a huge amount of sense.

DHS was a stupid idea. Much of what Lieberman has backed have been stupid ideas. Stupid ideas pitched with the intent of playing to polls. Here's a hint: "you can't cheat an honest man." And neither of those guys is exactly a paragon of honesty. [I haven't forgotten that Biden wrote Lincoln's speeches.]

Michael Scheuer pegged it here in "One Unhappy Republican:

You did not quote him saying:

"In a few hundred words, Mr. Reid and Mr. Dean reminded Americans that Democrats remain what American history shows they always have been, the party of the "four S's": Slavery, Secession, Segregation, and Socialism."

{snork} It was really stupid of Dean to pander like that, but at this point in time the Republican party IS, regardless of labels, the party of Ye Olde Southern Segregation Democrats. And Mr. Scheuer is playing agent provacteur there. "Our party is lead by morons and twits, but you can't not vote for them, since the other guys are SATAN." A game more than a few D's play as well.

The way it looks now to me, the only one who will benefit if Bush screws up Katrian reconstruction is: John McCain.

What we really need is a for John McCain to quit the R's a run as the candidate (perhaps even with Jo-mentum!) of the (third party) British Liberal Imperialist party. Christopher Hitchens can be their lead lunatic and The New Republic can be their house organ and whatshisname (the 'Terror Masters' guy over at NRO) can blither about how he was always a liberal anyways, and you can get Kaplan to plagarize Kipling wholesale instead of retail.

I'll even give you some slogans: 'Dedicated to restoring Her Majesty Victoria's Empire'. 'We don't care what you do in your bedroom as long as you like oppressing foreigners'. 'The Roman Empire has nothing on us! We'll show you a goddamn Dispora!' 'We love a man in uniform in more ways than one!' 'Our sturmabetilung have taken sensitivity training!' 'Giving you the opportunity to bleed and die for our greater glory!' And then you can go and mewl and whine over there and I won't have to listen to that crap anymore.

I see only two ways to get a majority back: go for votes in the middle, or if you want more ideological than that form a new strongly-libertarian-on-personal issues and stay-out-of-culture-wars-issues coalition with libertarian conservatives.

Would those be the libertarian conservatives that are actual libertarians or are those the guys who'll write a blank check for any war that might kill muslims?

To do the latter, one must give up on the social engineering plans and go more pro-small-business et. al.,

James Glassman.

Funny to do the former, you have to do the same thing! But no, the DLC is evil, no Republican lite fur us,

A party that isn't substantially different from Bush & friends (see Lieberman, NRO's favorite Democrat), there's no reason to vote for that party. Better the idiot you know than the idiot you don't.

we just know that if we revive the tax-and-spend big-Federal-government-dream that a new socialist majority will rise to the barricades out of the ashes.

If it's a choice between a peaceful socialists or imperialists (more likely  socialist imperialists, really, see Hitchens), I'll take my chances with the not-Imperialists. I've already got an imperialist on my hands, thank you very much, and taking twice as much money to lose the same damn war and chase the same Mesopotamian mirages while Osama laughs at us is not my idea of a good time.

Oh, yeah:

can't bear the thought of what their fellow Americans are like,

I like my fellow Americans just fine, it's the fucking ruling class (power, political, cultural, journalistic or otherwise elites) I can't fucking stand. The biggest bunch of useless, foolish, half-witted, whiny nomenklatura wannabes this side of fucking Leonid Brezhnev. Jesus Christ on a Pogostick. Half of 'em want Stalin and the other half want Mussolini, and it's not even the halves you'd expect.

And again:

And what that means to me is that the Dem party is not unified and is not ready to nor capable of leading.

Unified or no, if the Democratic party cannot run and win on the merits, it probably doesn't deserve to win. A Democratic party that pretends to be something other than it is (which is not to say parties cannot change) doesn't deserve to win period, and if it does so, it will be a disaster. For the United States. See George Bush. Given a choice between the health and well-being of the United States and either party or for that matter, both parties, I pick the United States. Parties and politicians (and consultants)(and think tanks) can be replaced, just as soldiers can be replaced...as our quasi-aristocracy are so fond of implicitly pointing out. I pick the United States and the hell with the rest of it. And if the United States turns into some kind of dictatorship, authoritarian, totalitarian, socialist, nazi, communist or oppressive tyranny to be named later, then the US isn't worth a hill of beans anymore and to hell with it. It's rats and sinking ships time!

ash

['Ah. I feel so much better now.']

I guess in politics you alway have to be smart about what you say, especially in the age of Clintonesque triangulations and crossing-overs. I haven't read the links, but I guess their best line would be that the Repugs are 'incompetent'.

Personally, I don't think they are incompetent; they get exactly what they want, but apparently just stating the obvious: that the Repugs are a party of cronyism, pillage and spin - is not allowed, so the Dems will have to stick with 'incompetent'.

That's weak, though. One doesn't hate the well-meaning but incompetent, one wants to give them 'another chance'. Having an affably-looking retard for a figurehead does have its advantages.

I see only two ways to get a majority back: go for votes in the middle, or if you want more ideological than that form a new strongly-libertarian-on-personal issues and stay-out-of-culture-wars-issues coalition with libertarian conservatives.

There's are third and forth ways, but they aren't pleasant.  The first is how Democrats got a majority in the first place: the Republicans screw things up so badly that people turn to Democrats because there is no alternative.  This happened twice, the Depression, of course, and then a mini-version happened with Watergate.  I would rather not see another Depression, and these guys are too disciplined and greedy for another Watergate, I think; besides, Watergate was a one-off, weird thing.  If the disaster of Iraq, with the lies, the cost, the bloodshed, the loss of international prestige, doesn't push people away from Republicanism, they ain't budging.

The second way is ugly: the McGovernite wing has to die off, or lose a substantial amountof its influence.  That's going to take 25 years, at least.  But all those salt-and-pepper haired, Angry People who think the 60s are unfinished business, and who thrust a moving target onto the national stage over his position on one issue, are a ball and chain that keeps the party unable to move nimbly.  They aren't going anywhere, and they are taking the party with them, so to speak.  As long as a substantial portion of middle America sees those people as what the DP is about, the party is going to struggle.  

The past few days, I've grown pessimistic about the near future of the Democrats.  I loathe Republicanism, with its fatuous, white bread base that thinks everyone is just like them: everyone grew up in a two parent household, didn't know need or hardship growing up, everyone looks pretty much like everyone else.  Republicans not understanding why the poor of New Orleans couldn't simply hop in their cars and check into hotels with their credit cards is emblematic of everything I hate about Republicans and Republicanism.  

But when I look at the DP blogosphere, I see little better.  People who offer anger in place of a positive agenda, people who are against Bush, but for nothing much really, people with an entire lexicon of ready-made, abusive words and phrases, which they use freely -- on members of their own party.  I want change, but positive change, and I don't see it coming from Democrats any time soon, while the Republican agenda of religion and unfettered big business simply fills me with disgust.  One party has good intentions and some good ideas, but is populated by some people I don't like; the other has bad ideas and is filled with people I don't like.  What a choice.    

The concept of a Department of Homeland Security was not a bad idea, but the implementation by the Republican congress was a disaster.  And the Democratic alternative was only slightly more senseible.

 Having a centralized command and control structure for some things like the Coast Guard, INS, and Customs, all of which have been working together on protecting our borders for years, while under other agencies that have other issues and priorities, would have made sense.  Beyond that it becomes one big bureaucratic clusterf**k.  FEMA especially should have never been part of the mix since it has a mixed mission and natural disasters will never get the attention that they deserve from DHS.

"There's are third and forth ways, but they aren't pleasant."

And there is a fifth way:

Nominate a Southerner who can connect with rural voters.