The "Democrats" aren't in a position of calling for the kind of withdrawal Murtha, Obama and Feingold have advocated, as a party, because they are still beholden to too many leading and powerful remaining hawks (like Lieberman) and fudgyhawks (current status of Hillary, who voted for the resolution that lost 58-40 but hasn't really reverse her position a la Murtha).

I have elsewhere proposed that what is needed, so that the Democratic Party can unify around the issue as an antiwar party for the 2008 election, when, I fear and expect, the Iraq War will still be with us.

RIGHT NOW, leading antiwar Democrats in and out of government, not the Democratic Party establishment but precisely people like Reed Hundt and whatever celebs he knows, and people like Tom Hayden and Michael Moore and Arianna Huffington and even some Hollywood folk, together with some of the 60+ members of the caucus that Maxine Waters founded, could get together to recruit a raft of strong antiWar Democratic candidates to challenge in the primaries every hawk or fudgyhawk Democrat in either House up for re-election next year.  Sure, they won't win a hell of a lot of primaries, but even a few close calls and a victory or two would have an electrifying effect on the Democratic Party over the next two years.  Most of the Democrats in each house are now antiwar, but to have a unified party platform requires a lot of extra effort from the grassroots.  I don't see it being made.   The rest is just chattering.

As for the issues involved in forming the 'collective Al Lowenstein 68' that I just described, which I have no doubt is one of those forbidden-because-effective-for-progressives strategies that characterize the programmed-against-authentic-progressive nature of US politics.   But here is a discussion of what, in a free society, would be a no-brainer, and in the society that we have would require some courage -- more than just a little, but less than others have shown in the past and even some albeit unrecognized do in the present:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/27/74425/217

And as for an assessment of the Iraq War, I have recently posted an excellent article by Seymour Hersh who points out that those who expect a rapid end to the war in Iraq during the Bush presidency are just whistling past the graveyard:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/29/193439/01


OK, now as for corruption and the social fabric, corruption is a tricky issue.  Most voters are bored by it, partisans get all excited about the corruption from the other side (just read a litany of some Clinton-hater of the supposed criminality of the Clinton Administration, from Vince Foster and Whitewater and FBI files and so forth), and others are skeptical about the significance of it.  Consider that, just before the 1972 campaign, how McGovern was pilloried, including by James Reston ("Better Elevate Them Guns A Little Lower", he titled a column, quoting Andrew Jackson at the battle of New Orleans), for suggesting that Nixon's was "the most corrupt Administration in American history".  And there was plenty that had come out, not only about Watergate, but about other scandals and practices, by October 1972.  Corruption can be a good issue against specific politicians.  Since neither party can claim pristineness, only the Repugs seem to be able to get away with bullying over it, even though there is so much more merit to criticizing them for it than Democrats.  If a good way to formulate the issue can be presented, I'd like to see it.

Now there is the social fabric issue.   That's what the Democrats as a national party (individual candidates usually being antiwar) is left running on, and they should make the most of it.  There is high energy prices, which I believe cannot but slow down the economy considerably, and all the ballyhoo about gasoline being down to pre-Katrina levels notwithstanding, COLD states are facing huge heating bills for this winter.  The house I live in was just insulated with blown insulation this August, and I expect the gas bills to go UP this winter, just less than they would.
On Social Security, all the Democrats -- you know, the ones who 'got with the program and justified the lying' in 2004 and didn't say squat about the flipflop spin's flimsiness (along with the press also 'getting with the program and justifying the lying' in the same way) for FIVE MONTHS as it hardened into a national cliche, the Democrats and the 527s none of whom saw fit to play the interview with Dick Clarke from Fahrenheit 9/11 where he describes Bush as of 9/12 coming to him and trying to badger him to come up with some way of linking the events to Iraq -- these Democrats need to find the old ads where Repuglicans accuse Democrats of trying to scare seniors about Social Security.   Then you cut to mass demonstrations of RWers chanting 'hey hey ho ho, Social Security has got to go' and put some quotes from leading RW think tanks on the screen to similar effect, and then you play that across the country like they did with the Willie Horton ad in 1988.  Presto!  But will it happen?
Oh, I forgot, we live in the real America, where no horses can win at the racetrack of politics unless they are the establishment's horses, and where the agenda for the Democrats is to "blow it" in 2006.  And, of course, any suggestion that what I just pointed out is really the case is met (unless ignored) with presumptions of paranoia or at least cynicism.

But I just outlined a home-run ad for Democrats, the kind they pay consultants more money than I would need to live on and get the spiritual healing that I can't afford.  Anyone care to take any bets that they won't do any such thing or anything else with that kind of impact helpful to them in next year's elections?

So there's all the pooh poohing as 'conspiracy thinking' and none of the pursuit of the no-brainer ideas that are needed by progressives.  And no one to call the whole process on it -- since you can't gain any aboveground prominence when you are so unruly as to tell it like it is, and not recognize "boundaries" (ie, the glass walls of repression that keep the game rigged against authentic progressive politics).

  No, they are mute because it's the correct strategy. Look at Arnold when he ran for governor in California. He didn't give a single policy of what he would do for governor. He focused everything on his opponent and said he would have to review everything and clean house. Good political strategy that left Gray Davis nothing to attack but smear jobs that helped Arnold anyway.

  Look at how Bush got elected. He cast doubt on Gore but was vague about what he would do. By the time Bush won no one had any idea what policy Bush would follow. The election was all about the faults of Gore because Bush gave no targets except promising to clean house, review things, etc. This is standard electioneering strategy.
  On the other hand the Dems do the exact opposite. Instead of offering no policies you can't shut them up. Instead of criticising the administration until recently it was all bipartisan and support the president. So Bush has had the opportunity to act like an opposition party even though he was elected. When the Dems suggest something he creates doubt about it, says he'll look into it, and then the Dems are on trial not Bush. 
  So Rove plays the Dems all the time. He deliberately stops  Bush from defining policies so the Dems have nothing to attack. Then the Dems crack and offer a specific policy then Rove jumps all over it and makes the Dems look incompetent, and if they try and change it then they are flip floppers.
  The Dems should be all negative on Bush, say nothing but they'll need to review everything Bush has really done before forming policies, say they'll clean house with corruption and cut Bush's wasteful spending. If they do that they'll win by a landslide. The Republicans will win in Congress though because the Dems will do exactly the wrong, lame strategy they employed the last two elections.

I've said this before in a different forum, but I have to say that because of the Democrats inability to come up with a coherent message of opposition to prolonging the war unecessarily, the Administration is going to do the exact same thing they did with the creation of the Deptartment of Homeland Security. They will criticize and vilify the Democrats ideas(to start drawing down troops) and then when it's unavoidable, claim the idea as their own. It worked then and I don't see why it won't work for them this time too.

The same thing with corruption, the White House will take credit for any anti-corruption measures that energe from congress, much as they did after the corporate Enron and Worldcom scandals. 

Cloudy, how are Dems beholden to Lieberman?  I must have missed that.  Does he have a PAC and contribute to their campaigns?

Reed, good stuff as I have come to anticipate from you here.

I know this is OT but I would be most interested in hearing your thoughts on the consequences of media concentration for our country.  How serious is the problem?  Are there groups working on this issue which are doing good work and are worthy of supporting?  Perhaps you have posted on this already and I missed it in which case I apologize in advance.

I know this is OT but I would be most interested in hearing your thoughts on the consequences of media concentration for our country.

I second that interest.  And would add that it's not at all OT, either.  After all, a theme can only be so effective when the means of communication work against it.  For example, if Democrats promote stewardship of the public interest as a reform theme, how could such a theme ever get a fair hearing in the deregulated and privatised communications industry where any government regulation of public "airwaves" is contrary to the interest of the industry?  Personally, I would love to see such an example explored by a former Federal Communications commissioner.

And I would like to hear Mr. Hundt's POV on media concentration from his insider's position as the head of the FCC.

Didactic Lesson: You've got to get your themes launched early.

Amen. Basically, I was trying to say the same thing here, where it seems to me that a commenter was trying to instruct me that I should be kinder and gentler with the Democrats, because they are not in power, and they can't help it that they cannot be leaders. To which my reaction is: HUH? DUH? Oh yeah, it's true, if you can't lead then you usually don't get to lead; to borrow one of Bush's terms (which he uses so ironically without seeing it,) it's hard work to scale up the mountain from the bottom when you've ended up there. Crying won't help.

Can't others see how deeply the culture of victimhood has seeped into the very essence of what is called the Democratic party?

Not only that "we're for the poor" but "we're so poor"! Until, most blogging has not helped much, in my view. Much of the left of center political blogosphere has only now started to wake to this, mho gleaned from watching since before the Iraq invasion. Instead of presenting ideas, values, politics, alternatives, whatever you want to call it or believe it should be, most left of center blogs have been about complaining about W and his friends, deconstructing actual plots by W and friends, or making new ones up using the imagination; bewildered, lost tribes retreating into little echo chambers to lick wounds. It's just so clear to me that this is not the way to win over the scant few that are needed to make a majority again. Victimhood, outrage and protests doesn't cut it for those swing folks; you have to actually act like you can come up with ideas of your own and lead.

Most Democrats know the right thing to do, or should know it.  With issues that are "damned if you do/damned if you don't" at least one can decide which action would do the least harm.  Generally that is not the difficulty.  What is hard is taking a stand, and announcing it out loud.  What politicians should do is behave every day as if they are willing to resign or be fired on principle.  That is what the best employees we all know do. And we do hire our leaders; we should be able to expect them to lead or be fired by us at the next election.  Leading these days in the current media climate is hard, however.  Democrats' motivations are all to often dissected by jaded, cynical talking heads or columnists who have been around Washington far too long to have any old fashioned idealism left.  A lot of times the right thing isn't even a question for them.  It is more often valued for style rather than substance.

Cloudy:

Do you respond to questions about what you write?  This is the second time I have asked you a question here to try better to understand what you are saying and why.  I think of this as a respectful, even flattering, way of treating other people who are advancing points of view.  The questions I've asked have not been asked rhetorically or in any spirit of hostility but out of a sincere desire to understand better in order to more knowledgeably entertain and perhaps further engage your arguments.  I honestly do not know how I can show any more respect for the views of others than by doing this. 

If you go to the "My Comments" section, it will indicate after each of your posts whether there have been any replies or not.  Sometimes--perhaps not often--replies turn out to be questions!  And this, I hope, is taken as a *good* thing!

AmericanDreamer -- I just went back and reviewed every comment of mine in the past month (out of over 65 total comments) that had received any response at all.  If anyone asked me a question, at least during that period, it was answered.  I couldn't find any response or question from you, at least in that time period.  Since I have made literally hundreds and hundreds of comments I didn't bother going back further in time to investigate, into October.  Still, if you let me know what and where the question was, I am happy to answer it.


I can also be emailed at cloudythescribbler@yahoo.com if you like