OFF-MESSAGE: RISE OF THE DINOs?
Reed Hundt's post provokes me to ventilate my muted enthusiasm for the upcoming Year of Scandal. To be sure, few pleasures will rival the spectacle of a legion of crooks getting their comeuppance, all the way from Members of Congress caught up in the Abramoff affairs to Karl Rove in Plamegate. The domestic spying thing sounds more serious but I suspect less will come of it, since the mechanism for oversight and remedy is too flaky and too tangled up in partisan politics. But the tangible crimes connected to Abramoff and the determination of prosecutor Fitzgerald should bear more fruit.
The Dems may retake control of one or both houses of Congress. It's Watergate all over again. So as they said to Mister Ed, why the long face?
The Watergate analogy betrays the problem. Watergate ushered in a generation of Democratic politicians with little in the way of ideological commitment other than honesty. Not long after Watergate we got the Reagan revolution.
Honesty is not enough. I'd rather have a slightly oily Harrison Williams expanding Social Security than an honest Tim Penny tearing it down. Looking forward, the U.S. faces major economic choices. I do not look forward to ascendant Democratic politicians adopting positions the mainstream media decides are prudent and moderate, since said media a) don't, when it comes to policy, know what the devil they're talking about; and b) like to see polticians 'working together to get things done' for its own sake.
A successful jihad against corrupt Republicans does not position the political system to move us forward in public policy. The public will not have shed basic, erroneous notions, such as:
- Social Security has a long run deficit that must be closed;
- "We can't afford" (sic) what the Government is projected to spend on health care;
- The trade deficit, what's that;
- Tax increases would hurt the economy;
- Free trade benefits working people through reductions in the price level.
We don't need more of this.
It really would be nice, if Democrats were to form a critique of Republican policy and ideology, which would suggest a way forward.
If the Democrats are going to enjoy anything more than a brief sojurn in power, some major institutional changes will have to be made. One would think that reality, alone, would be enough to motivate the more far-sighted of our politicians.
The fact that we will have Bush to kick around for three more years gives me perverse hope that Democrats may have time to develop both such a critique and the political infrastructure to implement it.
When Democrats start talking about serious media reform, I will know that something is finally happening. Democrats do not stand a chance, in the long run, as long as the corporate, right-wing Media has total control of American eyeballs. A slice-and-dice antitrust policy to reverse media consolidation, combined with an aggressive IRS winnowing of Washington astroturf and fake "think-tanks" would help. The Democratic Party might consider buying MSNBC, and running it as a counterpart to Fox News. It would sure beat waiting on the "professionalism" of journalistic whores.
January 1, 2006 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is certainly a concern, but I think a look at who's running shows that there are Democratic candidates who are committed to more than just Iraq. Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, -- the challengers are not strictly a bunch of social-liberal, anti-war, not-corrupt but perhaps "fiscal conservative" candidates. Even self-described "conservative Democrat" Paul Hackett (OH) has recently spoken on the need to look at the way Norway does health care as an example. Everyone is now on the record opposing social security "reform". The DCCC has also done a good job of recruiting candidates who are not first-time politicians; a popular Sherrif in Indiana, a party-switcher in Pennsylvania, candidates coming out of retirement in Kentucky, etc. Yes, there are the fighting Dems, and there are some gov't professionals, but surely these guys will be better votes than the ones they are replacing.
The welfare reform bill was intently tied to the political climate; it's the cap gains cut and especially the bankruptcy bill that strike me as false compromise.
January 1, 2006 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce: Dems need to beat them at their own game. Think-tanks, PACs, etc. and start to frame the issues correctly as George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute suggests. The media is always going to be a battlefield. Repetition, repetition, repetition. It takes lots of money and focus.
January 1, 2006 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
In terms of issues there is much political room right now for institutional change on media and on all aspects of money and politics, these are the keys to real change and the litmus test of a real Democratic party.
They are necessary, along with making clear that health care and greater energy independence are economically positive steps, not 'just' social policy concerns. These initiatives clearly are not something that would 'hurt competitiveness' and this must be explicitly and effectively argued.
January 1, 2006 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have a really good opportunity in 2006. Let's focus on the Republicans first, and then go for party purity:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/1/135741/8693
January 1, 2006 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have it exactly backwards. The Democrats need to take the principles of honesty they have applied to corruption and apply them to the rest of government.
I would rather have an honest politician doing what is right for the nation than a dishonest one doing what is best for the Democrats (in the short term, most likely).
Democracy only works because it functions as a free market of ideas. And free markets only work if there is a free flow of information. If the parties are not being honest, than voters can not make informed choices. And that is bad for the country, even if it leads to short term gains.
Of course, that is pretty idealistic. But it is a new year, so I can be idealistic for a couple of days, right?
January 1, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, and now that it's 2006 it's time we all started talking about this. Is there anyone out there who's enthusiastically looking forward to the 2008 presidential election, and, if so, can you explain why?
Is there any possible way we can de-Dukakicize the Democratic party? A big primary challenge to Joe Lieberman would be one step in the right direction, but is there any real chance of doing that? And what are we in California to do about Diane Feinstein?
Happy new year indeed.
January 1, 2006 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Feingold versus McCain.
Choosing between the better of two goods, rather than the lesser of two evils.
January 1, 2006 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, dtt, I'll grant you Feingold vs. McCain would be worth living for, and I guess pushing Feingold gives us something to work for and look forward to, though it's hard to be real optimistic.
CNN/Gallup 12/17, polling registered Dems and Dem-leaners:
<table width="600" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tr><td width="29"></td> <td width="190">
</td> <td width="79" align="center"> %</td> <td width="74" valign="bottom" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" valign="bottom" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" valign="bottom" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" valign="bottom" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29">
</td> <td width="185"> <span>Hillary Rodham Clinton</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 43</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>John Edwards</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 14</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>John Kerry</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 14</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>Joe Biden</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 8</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>Mark Warner</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 3</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>Bill Richardson</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 3</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>Evan Bayh</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 1</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>Tom Vilsack</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 1</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>Someone else</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 1</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>None</span><span> (vol.)</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 4</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>All/Any (vol.)</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 1</span>
</td> <td width="74" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="66" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> <td width="81" align="center"> <span><span> </span></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="29"></td> <td width="185"> <span>Unsure</span></td> <td width="79" align="center">
<span> 7</span>
</td></tr> </table>January 1, 2006 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry about that attempted table paste gone horribly wrong. let me try this...
Hillary Rodham Clinton 43
John Edwards 14
John Kerry 14
Joe Biden 8
Mark Warner 3
Bill Richardson 3
Evan Bayh 1
Tom Vilsack 1
Someone else 1
January 1, 2006 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So that's the ticket, then? Send in your own whores? Because why? Because Americans are incapable of doing anything except "buyin some?" That would put the Dems on equal footing with Repugs, which isn't a good place to be. Especially if you wanna be better.
January 1, 2006 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent debate. I agree that short term thinking will only afford short term results. 2006 thinking won't get 2008 or 2012 results we want. Get the attention of the American people by presenting new, progressive faces of our party leaders,ie. Obama, Warner, Richardson, Harold Ford Jr.
Clinton, Kerry, Edwards represent the impotence of our past. Let's sweep out the deadwood and plant new trees.
January 1, 2006 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent debate. I agree that short term thinking will only afford short term results. 2006 thinking won't get 2008 or 2012 results we want. Get the attention of the American people by presenting new, progressive faces of our party leaders,ie. Obama, Warner, Richardson, Harold Ford Jr.
Clinton, Kerry, Edwards represent the impotence of our past. Let's sweep out the deadwood and plant new trees.
January 1, 2006 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
First with Alan and his "table paste gone horribly wrong". I hate to have my New Years start that way.
But on the other hand I am down with Mike Pridemore "We have a really good opportunity in 2006. Let's focus on the Republicans first, and then go for party purity:" Because Mike was perhaps the first Clark guy to understand that pushing for Wes didn't mean throwing grenades at Dean. And pretty few Deaniacs realized that throwing elbows back at Clarkistas wasn't getting us anywhere.
Wil Rogers once said "I am not a member of any organized political party, I am a Democrat" and amidst the wry humor there is an important fact: if you slice the world or the nation across racial, social or religious divides on balance there is one guy on the high end of the hill and the rest of us on the bottom or clinging to parts of the slope. Bush was not at all joking when he said to an audience of affluent peers "Some people call you the haves, and the have mores. I call you my base"
The audience laughed, and it was a comfortable laugh, because they understood the fundamental truth of the quip.
Jesus drove the money changers out of the Temple. It didn't transform society in the Holy Land all on its own. And smacking down erstwhile Christian "Hot Tub Tom" Delay doesn't drain the swamp. But it is fine start.
Max's initial point: "The public will not have shed basic, erroneous notions, such as:
Social Security has a long run deficit that must be closed"
Gets additional attraction once people grasp the underlying concept "The Rebublican Party is lying to you. Again."
We don't have to figure out what makes one a "Good Democrat" we don't even have to debate whether that discussion even makes sense, the K Street Project is going up in flames and we just need to be pouring gasoline from the sides. Pelosi and Reid will come blinking out of the conflagration wondering how they ended up on third base. Because hopefully they will be fully aware that they didn't hit any triple.
January 1, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have got to ask yourself just how and why the majority of all potential American voters, who I believe about 75% are worker types (versus owner types), would ever vote for a conservative Repub administration that does not represent their economic interests?? The inevitable result of doing so would be the demise of their standard of living in favor of a smaller class of influential capitalists, which is indeed what has been happening under both the Reagan and both Bush administrations. I wish I knew why these types of social conservative administrations can keep pulling the wool over workers' eyes with maybe other less relevant social issues so they can get in power and screw the majority worker voters over and over on extremely vital economic issues.
My point is that any political party that can make itself clearly seen as representing the welfare of workers in America should never, never, never lose an election in a democracy! NEVER! Therefore back to the question of how can/could the Dems have lost the trust of so many working types so that these workers choose to vote either against their economic future or just do not see the Dems as the party that really is representing workers. Maybe they are all afraid of no jobs instead of supposedly secure jobs under the Dems, but certainly many workers do not see the dems as "their party".
What needs to be done is to allow government to clearly work for the benefit of American workers in everything it does! For example, unions need to regain the potential leverage in bargaining by stopping through governmental actions the ability of the owner class to send jobs to the lowest denominator of cheap wages in the third world and/or to allow cheap illegal labor to come into this country. Peoples' concerns about union abuses should also be dealt with through laws where indicated, but not by allowing owners to undermine the unions' power through the above mechanisms. For all workers, living wage requirements and improved working conditions and security (including a fair healthcare system for all) need to be made of upmost importance, and all tax policy should at least be fair to workers!
If such a political party philosophy and actions could be sold to all workers, namely that that party will really represent workers interests and welfare at all costs, then that party will/would always win elections in a democracy made up of primarily workers.
January 1, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as elections cost millions of dollars, candidates are going to be beholding to those with the funds.
That's why there is no worker's party. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
We have the Republicans and Republican Lite. Figure out a way to get the money out of elections (or have elections be affordable) and normal people will start running for office.
In the mean time they all have to cater to business demands. The disappearance of unions as a social force doesn't help either.
January 1, 2006 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I would caution against over-optimism that the exposure of the Bush-DeLay Gang scandals will lead to the Democrats taking over either house of Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008. One wild card is how effectively Republican spinmeisters manage to tar the Democrats as equally corrupt and brand McCain as a reform-minded moderate (under the admittedly questionable scenario that McCain manages to convince the Republican establishment that he is the only one who can save them from electoral defeat in 2008). The modern conservative movement may have crested in 2004, but it may still have enough momentum to wash over a still weak Democratic opposition for a few more years.
I agree with Max that the Democrats will not achieve any more than temporary gains if they don't stand for more than honesty. They must present a credible alternative to neoliberalism's "ownership society." But I also don't think it is a simple, either-or calculation: To my mind, being an honest politician today is akin to running against Tammany Hall a century ago: Solving the day-to-day problems of the citizenry can't be achieved without wide-ranging institutional changes to the electoral and policy making processes.
Democrats need to drive home the point that the policies which most hurt average Americans are a direct result of a horribly corrupt system. You want to save Social Security? That may be a difficult, if not impossible, goal until we see at least a few baby steps in areas such as campaign finance and media antitrust policies.
If Kerry had won I didn't expect him to accomplish virtually any legislative victories for at least two years. Thus, my great hope was that he would take on the role of prosecutor-in-chief. That is, that Kerry would select a kick-butt attorney general who was told to aggressively pursue an ongoing series of high-visibility prosecutions against corrupt practices, both in the political and corporate realms. The political goal would be to relentlessly drive home the point to average Americans that institutionalized corruption was THE central problem facing the country.
I think a "scorched earth" prosecutorial strategy still makes great sense, even if - or perhaps, precisely because - it will invariably take down some corrupt Democrats in the process. As such, it would take a great deal of political courage and savvy to pull off this strategy, but it may also be the only way Democrats can achieve a substantive and long-lasting realignment of electoral power.
January 1, 2006 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, don't think in any practical terms beyond this session of Congress. Get to your Congress person and support censure/impeachment. Now!
January 1, 2006 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
When we heard of Paul Jay's project to start an international television news network supported by viewer donations, we said to ourselves, "Now here is a guy who is truly BuzzFlashian!" After all, BuzzFlash was started in May of 2000 with sweat equity, and it has been supported ever since by its readers -- 5 million monthly, these days, although in the first month of our online existence, we only had 34 readers a day. When we met Paul Jay, we became convinced he's got the professional expertise and righteous indignation to maybe pull this idea off. After all, we did, on the Internet. So, we have joined his advisory committee, and BuzzFlash is fully supporting his efforts. After all, he's a kindred spirit who cherishes democracy, the free flow of ideas, and social justice. You can find out more about his vision and unfolding plans at the Independent World Television web site: http://www.iwtnews.com/
<span class="art-title"> - read the Buzzflash interview HERE</span>
</span>
January 1, 2006 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give Feingold a year. A lot of people like the idea of Campaign Finance Reform, and when they start to associate him with McCain-Feingold, he will move up quickly.
Plus, he should have the "Dean Effect" going for him - he has a good chance of appealing to the internet crowd (because of his lone anti-Patriot Act vote) which will give him a huge boost in publicity. (Whether he will do something more useful with it than Dean did remains to be seen.)
January 1, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Bruce. I agree about the K Street Project, which was partially focused at taking away any power Democrats might have. DeLay, with the help of Rick Santorum and Grover Norquist, has run K Street like a mob boss, and kicked in money so the Republican Congress would remain compliant. We face a ruthless enemy. We need less infighting and more focus on the enemy please.
January 1, 2006 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Therefore back to the question of how can/could the Dems have lost the trust of so many working types." One thing that struck me about Sawicki's post was one answer, its frightening bulleted Republican talking points that have framed the domestic debate. We haven't lost trust entirely; I can't believe that Bush could have won without the war, the even more maniacal framing of assumptions about terrorism and patriotism, and plain old smears. Still, those bullets are a chastening reminder.
We're used to other answers instead, that the Democrats don't stand for anything, don't have new ideas, or lose on social issues (although those, too, based simply on people's voting their opinions issue by issue would favor democrats). But it's good to be reminded what we're really up against. Another answer, to counter the disadvantage in getting those bullet points across by getting our own media, doesn't work for me either, as then we'd lose on sheer money and cheap entertainment value, as well as abandoning our remaining minute advantage from the MSM, in its ability to discover facts and any presumption of objectivity. Hey, where objectivity is allowed, we win!
So what's that leave? I'm always pessimistic, and I never get past this point. But I'll say that a demand for honesty is easily morphed into one for accountability, and that comes close to the entire liberal program, to think of government not as too big (or too small or two dishonest or whatever) but as essentially of the people, by the people, and for the people, as opposed to King George and his wealthy friends. We don't need new ideas, and we're always at a hopeless disadvantage in cutting through the nonsense that obscures ideas, but maybe this once the honesty issue could lead not to abandoning ideology for competence but to some kind of recovery of a program.
January 1, 2006 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We haven't lost trust entirely; I can't believe that Bush could have won without the war, the even more maniacal framing of assumptions about terrorism and patriotism, and plain old smears.
...
So what's that leave? I'm always pessimistic, and I never get past this point.
Democrats didn't lose trust; Republicans won it by moving to the right and picking up the George Wallace vote. Really, all you have to do is look at some historical electoral maps, then the ideological stances of the two parties, and it's obvious. But people on the left refuse to accept it, because once you do accept it, the only solution becomes clear: move the party to the right. Either the country will move to the Democrats (not going to happen short of a catastrophe even worse than Bushism), the Democrats move to where the votes are (almost as unlikely), or the Democrats remain a tactical, defensive party, because adopting a national leftist message would alienate more voters than it would win (How's the Green Party doing these days?). All this talk about "DINO" and so on is self delusion.
January 1, 2006 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember Howard Jarvis? He accomplished the supposedly impossible. For those of you too young to know, he got Proposition 13 (I think it was?) passed in California to limit real estate taxes. The idea here is not about taxes but about the power of referendum. If the Dems could provide credible new party faces proposing popular issues be settled through public referendum, while risky, it might galvanize a bored and jaundiced electorate.
January 1, 2006 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Mide Pridemore gets it right that we need to develop unity first, then message and not the other way around. If we think back to 94, the GOP recognized that between the Post office scandal, Clinton's fumble on health care, and a good number of moderate Dems that had won swing districts in 92, they could sweep the board with a coherent critique of the Democrats and little to nothing new to propose (go back and reread the Contract with America and see if there is any specific republican program there).
The point is that the Democratic coalition, when it was a majority, was deeply divided and since 94, we have not really found a way to function as a modern political party in terms of a communications strategy or a funding strategy that alligns our most popular talking points with our funding and voting base.
I think this is what we can achieve in 06.
January 1, 2006 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold looks like a viable candidate for the Presidency.
January 1, 2006 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Max
You seem to mix apples and oranges. The Democrats who were elected to Congress in 1974 may not have been intensely ideological but Democrats continued to control the Congress for another 20 years. It was Carter seem to be inept and the combination of Carter and McGovern in the public's mind that gave us Reagan.
While Feingold seems like a decent fellow and a good Senator I fear that if he is the Democratic candidate we may not see a Democratic president in my lifetime. Further, I see no chance of McCain getting the Republican nomination.
American's don't want pacificists or do-gooders they want winners. People who stand for something and fight for it. People who will make people feel safer. What we should want as Democrats is a candidate who can hold valvues other than taxcuts, creed and "strangling goverment."
January 1, 2006 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats just don’t get it. It s a numbers game and the Republicans have the play book
The democrats always talk about the big tent, how inclusive they are, morally it’s good to be tolerant. But the larger turnout for Bush and company was the evangelical movement. Ignore that at your peril. Gay rights is not an issue they’d fight for, liberals do that, , welfare checks to unproductive citizens, liberals do that to.
We need to address the issues of the larger voting block, the Republican party tapped this block and won. It doesn’t mean that the Republicans are saints, calling them liars and crooks, doesn’t work
To the evangelical the ends justify the means if it promotes their interests. The Republican party recognized the level of commitment by this group, they felt their pain. Liberal government is the enemy, it attacks the values of these people, The Republicans listened to them, so a few are corrupt but all they need to do is cry on TV and say they repent and these Evangelicals are ready to forgive and forget . If you want to gain their respect, respect them.
The way to turn the evangelicals towards the side of Democrats is to point out the truth, point out what there great leader Jesus said about Wolves in sheep’s clothing, honest pay for honest work, Avoiding any appearance of compromising with moral values. The Democrats better learn to speak their language, or you will not win this voting block
The Evangelicals think that most liberals are atheist and have left the “WAY”
Point out how Bush who claimed to be compassionate, had a form of godly devotion but proved himself false when the poor folks hit by Katrina were left hungry and thirsty. Find the verse, speak their language, so they hear their masters voice in your message, that exposes this hypocrisy, maybe they’ll stay home and we reduce their voting numbers
Then you can think about winning
January 1, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what are we in California to do about Diane Feinstein?
Most of the time Feinstein is a sure Democratic vote on just about everything. As long as we are a minority party, as we seem to be now, we should be trying to make sure she is reelected, not trying to do something about her. I am not an admirer of Feinstein and never have been since she was mayor of San Francisco, but she is a Democrat not a Republican, so her reelection is essential.
January 1, 2006 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have always thought that the democrats just ACT a little bit too timid for the american people to trust them. Acting like you're weak just leads to the perception that you really ARE weak......and the dems have gotten into the habit of acting like they are supposed to be allowed to win every now and then. The problem with this is that the republicans have a blood-lust that is insatiable......they take no quarter......and they're sure as hell NOT going to concede any ground any time soon.
So, what is the answer? I think it's going to take a while but it must come from several fronts. Air America Radio is one excellent front in the battle. Our own think tanks and the like are also a large part in the war. Having some congressional bomb-throwers would be nice too. Remember that Newt was essentially a back-bencher until he took over.....I don't see Pelosi as speaker as much as I like her. She's a HORRIBLE spokesperson. Our guys also need to come up with a grand plan or at least a set of ideas (concrete stuff, mind you, not a bunch of stupid platitudes) to put before the electorate this year.
Finally, I would like to see the democrats who appear on TV and elsewhere start to take on the idea of conservatism EVERY TIME THEY GET THE CHANCE. Let's not forget what conservatives have done......they accept the validity of NOTHING that liberals put forward......they never accept debating points on the grounds that liberals make them......and they NEVER CONCEDE THAT LIBERALS "HAVE A POINT". The Gingrich era conservatives were self-confident and never accepted that they might be wrong. WE NEED OUR DEMOCRATS TO START ACTIING LIKE THEY OUGHT TO BE IN CHARGE.
January 1, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Demos are not dino's as much as they are hyper-cautious, temporizing, yellow-bellied sapsuckers who are largely incapable of politcal stragegy on the grand scale necessarry to full exploit present opporuntiies.
Josh Marshall put it well
But it does at least suggest one point worth considering: the other side's scandals can reshuffle the political cards temporarily. But it probably won't be for that long if the scandals aren't intrinsically connected to the bases of the afflicted party's power or if their fall-out doesn't catalyze a some deeper political and ideological reconfiguration in the country. Nixon's dirty-tricksterism wasn't at the heart of the rise of the American right in the late 20th century. So it continued on without him.
Unlike the Nixon Watergate scandals, today's outrages do indeed implicate the GOP power base (and I include the scandal of Iraq & Bush's national security progam generally)
January 1, 2006 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, Not Hilary!
January 1, 2006 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The current mess is really the Democratic Party's fault. Until the party is prepared to reform, it will stay in the minority.
During the 1970s the Democratic party redefined itself as a collection of idenity groups. Idenity groups in mutual support of interest. Well, you cannot have ALL idenity groups, otherwise no one gains by joining in the club.
Who got left out? It was the perceived oppressors, otherwise known as the rurual, whites, southern, men, straights, especially, but not only, in combination. Before the 1970s, these people were a large part of the Democratic party and made up a large part of the base that brought us the New Deal and the Great Society. However, they are not a welcome idenity group. In fact, they are specifically unwelcome.
For some reason, the hodge podge of other idenity groups forgot to do the math before they tossed out these oppressors. These unwelcome people made for a pretty large part of the population.
The ever-opportunitstic banker Republicans welcomed these outcasts with open arms. Hence the evangalistic/banker alliance.
Democrats don't need to endorse fundamentalist evangalism. If they do, I AM out of here, that is why I am NOT a Republican (although I AM a straight white man with southern rural roots). Just make the party a lot less hostile to the so called oppressors, most of 'em haven't a clue why they are oppressors, which they aren't.
January 1, 2006 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In its own way, the current morass in Iraq -- where there is less disagreement between the parties than may be evident -- is also a child of bipartisan mendacity"
Yes. And add to your list the bipartisan mantra that Israel made the Palestinians a 'generous offer' at Camp David. Ending US support for any Israeli settlements on the land conquered in 1967 is a requirement for a different US policy toward the Middle East.
January 1, 2006 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please name something a mainstream Democrat has said that is hostile to southern whites.
January 1, 2006 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is main stream? Jesse Jackson? Howard Dean? Al Sharpton?
January 1, 2006 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
On issue after issue, the majority of the American public identifiies with Democratic party positions...sometimes substantial majorties.
The Democratic party doesn;t have to worry about being "too leftist" any longer. Liberals should no longer cringe for fear that someone such as yourself might call them "leftist".
The only thing democrats have to fear is....
January 1, 2006 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
DiFi can be a trial but sooner or later she comes around. She is now doing one of her two-steps on Iraq - not very bold of her I grant you, but its her way and her way is valuable in the Senate.
Dianne is that type of legislator who is always looking to cut a deal across the asile. Her type is functionally salutary for the Senate, the party, and her constituents (even AIPAC)
She is no Lieberman. Dianne Feinstein is highly effective and votes left on enough issues (Roberts, firearms, environment, social services cuts for instance) to keep progressives in her camp albeit not very happy campers.
January 1, 2006 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should also point out the impermissibility of certain identity groups practically forces some people into others. White men cannot identify as whites, that's racist. They cannot identify as men, that's sexist. Straight men cannot identify as straight, talk about sexual orientation (even, or especially, "normal" sexual orientation) is taboo.
Southerns can identify as Southerns in the south (not much of an accomplishment), but if you move to the north, you will find that there is something vaguely wrong with you for being Southern. It takes a strong personality to overcome that.
Americans in general, or at least the entire urban and suburban population, considers anyone rural to be a stupid goober. For the uninformed northerner (and my guess is, urbanite anywhere), Southern (other than Miami) is equal to rural.
Strike all these identity groups off the list, and what identity group does the straight rural southern white man (not all adjectives are needed) have to join?
Let's see:
- He could buck the trend and not associated with an identity group. The political disadvantage is that identity groups get benefits.
- He can trace his genealogy and identify with an ancestral homeland. This may have some political cache if the homeland turns out to be recently oppressed. Western European diasporia need not bother unless they suspect some substantial American Indian ancestry.
- He can forget social acceptability and go for a shock group. OR
- He can become a fundamentalist.
In a politics of identity, it makes sense for fundamentalism to grow.January 1, 2006 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You prove too much and cannot account for the fact that it is the Republican party that has moved too far to the right.
If the Republicans moved too far to the right, why do they win elections? I'm tempted to leave it at that, because it's a question you can't provide an answer to that will hold up to scrutiny, but...
On issue after issue, the majority of the American public identifiies with Democratic party positions...sometimes substantial majorties.
If people voted based on issue polls, the Democrats would be all set, wouldn't they? But there's obviously a lot more to it than that. Just as an example, one of the issues folks like yourself always talk about is abortion. And it's true: a majority of the public generally supports abortion rights. However, when you start breaking it down, adding qualifiers and restrictions -- "I support choice, but abortion should be restricted more" and so on -- that support softens. And the real key here is, how many Americans base their vote on abortion? And of those, how many do so because they are against it, rather than for it? What it boils down to is, abortion is a much more important issue to the anti-abortion people -- drives more of them to the polls -- than it is to the pro-choice people. And the same is true of a host of issues. How many people vote Republican because of gun control? How many people vote Democratic because of gun control? And so on, and so on. The argument you and others make about issues is too simplistic, because it doesn't delve into how those issues actually inform voting decisions.
January 1, 2006 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worth repeating.
January 1, 2006 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where you going to go, the sidelines. You’ll only suffer the consequences of inaction
Observe how the fundamentalist have grabbed Television and Radio, it is staggering how many people are reached daily, to be mobilized, and controlled to respond and the influence they have, and you want to sit on the sideline, your minority position will still be a minority position with no power.
To beat this fundamentalist movement is to infiltrate, speak the language, create dissension among their leadership, expose the Pat Robertson’s or the Farwell’s as heretics not worthy to call themselves Christians.
I didn’t know of their master as intolerant.
But the fundamentalists followers will rally around the leadership if you attack them if you have no credentials to speak in terms of righteousness. Words are not going to win these people to our side, illustrations and principles move the heart.
When John Kerry made a reference to the Good Samaritan he blew it. He didn’t ask his listeners, Who really was the good Samaritan? Or what makes a person a good Samaritan he basically lectured and told a good story. He reached no ones heart or thinking process.
At least Edwards was folksy enough to capture the peoples attention, But he was not chosen by the established Democrats as frontrunner material. We’ll never know what might have been
Fundamentalist think they are rendering God a sacred service by voting like they do. Create the opportunity for them to make a better choice based upon their desire for service to their faith and not a liberal attack on their faith
January 1, 2006 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have missed Max's point JMACSF. At the risk of returning to the subject of Max's title, "Rise of the DINOs, the only thing Democrats have to fear is other Democrats calling them "too leftist." A very big reason for the success of the Right Wing Noise Machine is that DINOs cooperate with the right wing message that Democrats are "too leftist."
January 1, 2006 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to apologize for this last posting, I violated what i said a person should not do. Mr. Robertson and the Mr. Falwell may be misguided and with some discussion may change some of their views.
So it was improper to demonize them specifically and it will not advance the cause of dialogue to attack them personally.
I should have said I disagree with some of their comments.
SORRY
January 2, 2006 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Locked and loaded on Luigi's load
Yes indeed you are correct and Luigi is full of worn ad hominem and well hoisted
January 2, 2006 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tripe and straw
Ready to withstand a little scrutiny?
Your origiinal comment:
My rebuttal:
Your surrebuttal:
Scutinize a hoist by your own petard.
Move right? Why? Move away from the majority of the electorate? Sounds like a fool's errand to me.
Thirty years of US poliitical history, a reprise in one sentence -tripe fully scrutinized. The Democrats have paid too much attention for too long to such nonsense.
I think Rover has the better of it....
Picking Up The Straw:
The complexities of voter choice and party ideologies is an iinteresting subject but as a strawman to my objection, quite beside the point that you proved too much, twice now. Issues DO in fact matter. Voter candidate choice does correlate nicely with issue clusters. Subject of logistic regressions happy to let you scutiinze sometime
Til then, scrutinize
I commend Hacker and Packer's Off Center and recent discussions here...check the archives, read the book
Nice hoist. Enjoyed it.
January 2, 2006 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
A recent Teixeira summary ..
Ideology needs no adjustment.
The spines do.
It's obvious isn't it!
January 2, 2006 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans successfully sold a narrative. That narrative says that the New Deal was a failure, and that the Crown Jewel of the New Deal, Social Security, will be a colossal failure. Most young people 'understand' 'know' that Social Security 'won't be there for them'. They expect that they will get zero.
Now Barkley Rosser can point out that 76% of a benefit currently scheduled to be 160% of today's benefit equals a check 120% of what a 65 year old gets today. And he would be perfectly correct. And I can point to Table V.B1 (Principal Economic Assumptions) and Figure II.D7 (Long Range Trust Fund Ratios under the Three Alternatives) and patiently explain that under ordinary economic growth Social Security is fully funded. And I would be equally corrrect. But we are pushing a numeric narrative in the face of a Cato juggernaut.
Sometime this spring, right around the scheduled release of the Social Security Report on March 31, someone is going to admit once and for all that Social Security is not broke and people who have been saying that it is are for the most part of bunch of fricking liars. And this message should reverberate far and wide. Baby Boomers have been scapegoated for a generation as being a bunch of greedy moochers who will eat all the seed corn leaving Gen X and Y 'ers dependent on the market to provide their retirement needs.
And this has played out in Party platforms. Even suggesting that governmental solutions to social problems has been deemed worthless, after all the need to do something, anything to cope with the wave of Boomer retirements. That's the Third Way mantra "Save Social Security First". The notion that Social Security is not only not broken, not needing any fixing, and that the real debate going forward is whether to return the excess payroll tax to workers or divert it it Medicare is not even on politicos' radar screens.
So while I am eagerly expecting the Delay/Abramoff fallout to provide the seasoning and ultimately the dessert, I am expecting FDR to deliver the meat and potatoes: hmm, Social Security, its not only solvent, its what for dinner.
January 2, 2006 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The watergate analogy is off the mark totally. Nixon was never really part of the right that began with Goldwater. Look at how he ran in 1960. His scandal was one of corrupting the political process from the breakin of Democratic headquaters to Ellsberg. It is correct that the elections of 74 and 76 were bumbs in the road for the right, however the right is declining now. Bush didn't even win both elections and the Democrats did take back the Senate (as a piece of the old Republican coalition broke off from the new) and almost the House. As well, the scandals of the current regime are far deeper and total than Watergate, the Republicans have become an election stealing, war making, protection racket. This will be the last gasp of the Republican right if the Democrats are not only honest but comitted to an agenda of real reform especially in the realm of good job creation, equality and a health care system based on a single payer. It is most important to look at the South as the source of the ugliest aspects of the new right as well as the source of the ugliest acts of American history. The first step is to withdraw from Iraq, make it clear that Bush was responsible for 9/11 and that the war on terror should be a war on fundementalism of all sorts.
January 2, 2006 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
THe solution is to show the lower middle class that the democrats are all about hard core economic issues that affect ALL americans. If the democrats can prove that they are for populist economics and not for identity politics, they will wipe the floor with the GOP.
But the upper class and business lobbies who feed the machine have put out so much propaganda that we have all these meat puppets running around spouting nonsense about marketing, etc.
The dems have a lot to make up for.
January 2, 2006 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, there is a big discussion among the comments here on this thread about why the GOP has managed to move so far right. I am going to make a general statement on that:
The GOP and Dems have both moved right, but the dems have been able to move right because the GOP has moved so far right first. The GOP led the way.
In general, ALL politicians would rather move as far right as possible because you get more donations from the rich and corporations and you are less likely to be targeted by Big Money that way. THe elite politicians are generallly about power, not changing the world for the little people.
THe GOP has been able to move right because the Dems and the American left in general has shifted from economics based leftism towards identity-politics leftism. This brand of leftism is focused more or less on race and gender.
A big part of this identity politics leftism that is practiced by the American left is the idea that whites -- and perhaps the white lower middle class males in particular -- is somehow responsible for the race crimes of black slavery and Jim Crow. Further, the idea of white racism has in some way become the centerpiece of American leftism, which is associated with the Democratic party.
This pisses off the white lower middle class. They never owned black slaves. In fact, a black slave in 1850 cost about $100K to $200K dollars-- CASH! The upper class had that kind of money, not the vast majority of whites. Only about 5-10% of all whites had that kind of money.
In fact most of the white lower middle class had ancestors who were white slaves themselves. A little known fact about American history is that it started out just as Australia did--as a white slave colony. The vast majority of so called indentured servants were in fact white slaves (and were often called slaves (they were often sold at auction,etc)).
Also, the census bureau once estimated that because of race mixing between white slaves and black slaves in the 1600s, that about 90% of all Americans with longtime Southern ancestry do indeed have some black slave ancestry.
Anyway, a little history for you there....
So, back to the subject at hand. THe white lower middle class (those descendants of the white slaves) are really angry (many of them) at the identity politics of the American Left. Really angry. And so if the GOP paints itself (via its noise machine) as the party of the white lower middle class (the largest voting bloc in America, BTW), then the GOP can get away with pretty much anything.
I have a theory BTW that American leftism was diverted towards identity politics starting decades ago. This was mainly done by the same combination of CIA-FBI-non profit foundations that were used to divert leftism overseas in various countries after WW2. The basic idea is these the largest of these foundations were set up by CIA money and plutocrat money to fund activists and writers who were identity politics oriented. Check out what Richard Bissell said (he was a CIA honcho who became a Ford Foundation honcho): the idea is not to debate the ideology of the leftists, but instead to divert their energies to less harmful areas. THat was a paraphrase.
Anyway, continue your debate....
January 2, 2006 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem Max is warning about?
1. The bogus welfare reform of 1996, aka "Ending Welfare As We Know It."
2. Capital gains tax cuts in 1997.
3. MBNA Biden's Bankrutpcy "Reform" Bill.
Those "bi-partisan" legislative acts were all failures for the Democratic Party that DINOs hailed as victories. Query: Whose side are the DINOs on?
January 2, 2006 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! Little boo boo. When I said that a black slave in 1850 cost $100-200K, that is in today's dollars.
A day's pay for a free white man in 1800 was about $1/day, and $150 was the median yearly income. For example, the white craftsmen working to build the White House got about $1.50 a day, and the indentured whites and slaves got about $1 a day.
So in 1800 you might get $200-400 for a most black slaves. In 1850, the price had gone up to 1800 for a strong one, and over 2000 for a female "black" slave that was actually white.
But the annual income had gone up by then, too.
So, a black slave usually cost about 2-6 years of income for a working man. Since $35K is the median (FAMILY) income today, that means that a black slave cost about $100-200K in today's dollars.
White slaves cost less, because at least theoretically they could not be sold as chattel permanently, but when white slaves did sell at auction they brought less $ because they could more easily escape (the rich planters mostly stopped the practice of auctioning white slaves in the 1700s because they wanted to seperate the poor whites from the blacks in order to stop mixed race rebellions).
January 2, 2006 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
JMACSF,
Is your constant usage of wildly excessive whitespace (extra carriage returns) in your posts specifically designed to annoy your audience, or is that just an unintended side effect?
January 2, 2006 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow Dino's managed to get this all reversed.
Reagan gave us huge budget deficits, which Bush I and Bush II proceeded to make worse.
On the other hand FDR gave us Social Security. A fantastically successful program that is actually overfunded going forwards.
Yet Luigi is living in a world that argues we need to move Right. No we don't. We are Correct and they are Wrong, We are Left and they are Right only because they sit on that side of the room.
Starting in 1964 and right though 1968 the Democratic Party started scraping off the racist crust that may have given us electoral victories but tarnished us. It was painful, losing Lester Maddux and Strom Thurmond is what gave us Nixon and Reagan. But the fact is is that when I was a boy if you were a bone ignorant white male racist who believed the earth was flat and that foreigners needed to learn English because after all that was good enough for Jesus, then chances are you were a reliable Democratic vote. And if you believed that government had a vital role in regulating commerce while allowing the market to work, then you were a good Republican.
People have a right to be fundamentalists and I don't even necessarily blame people who are just so ignorant that they will believe any claptrap the Man hands down to them. But the answer is not to tug my forelock and say "Thank you Mr. Man! Because no poor man every gave me any damn job!! and $5.25 an hour is plenty! just glad to have it! By the way - nice car".
The Republican Party is this close to losing the entire Northeast. The Democratic Party could not afford losing the Blue Dogs, they could not hold power without them. We lost them for the most part. Now we have the opportunity to pick up five or six pretty easy Senate seats in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast with or without the folks who currently sit in them. We lost Lester Maddux, we have a pretty good chance of picking up Lincoln Chafee. I'll take the swap.
January 2, 2006 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ronnie Raygun is the beginning of the demise of this great nation and the middle class. Fixing what is wrong has to start with his Reagan's time in office. Trickle down, indeed!
Clinton in some ways was even worse. If Reagan or Bush had done NAFTA, we would have KNOWN not to trust them. But because it was Clinton (and he was suppose to be one of us), we trusted him. Instead of looking out for jobs and wages in this country, he triangulated us right up the river. DLC manifesto thinks this is great, and we need to do more.
I'm telling you and the DLC. If we get another GD Dino as our Presidential candidate, this liberal is voting for the Republican (even if its Frist); and I'm going to send him money,too.
I just wany my country back. Where the hell did the United States of America go?
January 2, 2006 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Dems could be collectively clear on a long and strong list they could get close or win House and Senate in 2006 despite near-monopoly Republican control of non-internet electronic media.
Given power of television in a Presidential campaign, Presidency will be much harder, virtually impossible unless Republicans are dumb enough not to go with someone who has some distance from Bush. What we really need is blogovision, the diversification of all media -- that is what I was trying to say upthread. I do not think that the Democratic Party per se should buy a TV station.
January 2, 2006 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The first step to successful Democratic realignment is admitting failures of policies, such as welfare. You aren't going to win elections by saying the problems don't really exist, unless they really don't exist. You have to acknowledge them, and then work to try something different to fix them.
There is obviously going to be a disagreement between Dems and Reps over what that something is that will fix them, and there in lies the differentiating factor with the voters.
But if you sit there and claim there were no problems with a welfare system that encouraged people to not work, then the voters are left with no alternative than to vote for the guys who recognize reality.
In your other examples. I don't know a single person who wants to pay more taxes, but I know many who will if they feel it is necessary. Your example is another failure of Democratic rhetoric, to reinforce the notion that we just want to increase taxes for the hell of it.
January 2, 2006 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, then following your logic we should come out for repealing the Civil Rights Act, resegregating schools and lunch counters.
Don't you see how totally you've bought into the right wing propaganda? If they'd brainwashed you they couldn't have done a better a job. "The party must move right". And next time? "The party must move right". There is no other message. There is room for no other thought. The rightward march is the conventional wisdom and no political party must deny that message or God forbid offer an alternative message. Leftist message? This is about anyone presenting any other message at all.
And yes, it is terrifying to begin to think that the Greens might be the last best hope for anything else.
January 2, 2006 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Odds are, you don't know anything at all about welfare. Most people don't. Ranking it, for example, among non-defense federal programs, was it among the top 10% most expensive? Second dectile? Third?
How many people were involved?
Exactly what was reformed?
Compared with, say farm subsidies, why should we not say the changes were simply mean spirited?
Compared with, say farm subsidies, how much goes to a single recipient before reform?
January 2, 2006 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that they became an identity group is the worst part of it all. Mind you, it also dislodged white midwesterners through Ohio and into PA. How do you blame second, third, and fourth generation European Americans that they are to blame for historic American social inequities? And that if they objected to particular methods of remediation they were racist? These wounds are still festering. Dean got an easy kick in the groin when he broached the subject. Meanwhile, MSM focused on Conye West during Katrina while black politicians have been trying to get the message out that the issues they were concerned about affected all poor people, all working people, regardless of race. It's going to take time, but any long term prospects for the ascension of progressive policies must include disgarding knee jerk liberal reactions towards rural Southern White males. Otherwise fear and mistrust will be sustained.
January 2, 2006 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the Democrats can't figure out why the can't win outside the Rustbelt and California and think coversion to evangelicalism is the answer. A little simple human respect for people not like themselves would go a long ways.
January 2, 2006 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry bub, but your simplification of these major problems will lead to nothing but independent minded people running away from any democrat suggesting that these are not problems.
Neither party has been honest with us about both of these issues. The Republicans lied in their attempts to hype the problem to justify privatization. But the democrats lied just as badly in their attempts to fight privatization by discounting the problem. There is currently no deficit in SS, but when we start calling in the chips in the trust fund in about 10 years, there will be a real hole that will be only be filled by taking from someone's pocketbook. Just be honest and propose whose pocketbook you want to take it. If you want to take it from the rich then just say bluntly, "let's take away the tax cuts and stop robbing the trust fund." Democrats, get some cojones!
As for health care, get real for Chrisakes. The prescription drug bill that pays benefits to every senior is just bullshit. This program should have been designed to help only those who need it. IF the dems cannot propose a more sustainable, affordable and simpler program than this and get it passed, they don't deserve to have the reigns of government.
Frankly, I am not sure that either party really wants the role of actually running this cluster**** that we call the "United" States. Can I trust either party? They both seem to be so irrelevent to the needs of the real world.
January 2, 2006 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are an uniintended consequence
Feel better?
Now run along
January 2, 2006 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: Diane Feinstein. Her reluctant defenders make some good points, and it's true, she's no lieberman. I guess I mean, in the context of this thread, how do the Dems craft an effective message when, in this bluest of blue states, our senior Dem voted for the tax cuts, the prescription drugs rip-off, the Iraq war, and said what a gloriously good job her good friend Condi Rice had done as national security advisor. While meanwhile contributing nothing towards a positive agenda, (on health care or energy, for example).
The Democrats: We're not always as bad as the Republicans, just usually.
January 2, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, then following your logic we should come out for repealing the Civil Rights Act, resegregating schools and lunch counters.
Really? Is that what the Republicans stand for? Is that in the Republican platform somewhere? Is that how they win votes -- campaigning for repealing the Civil Rights Act and re-segregation?
Please, in the future before arguing against "my logic," use some of your own.
January 2, 2006 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I knew why these types of social conservative administrations can keep pulling the wool over workers' eyes with maybe other less relevant social issues so they can get in power and screw the majority worker voters over and over on extremely vital economic issues.
Well, I think you answered your own question there.....and it's one of the most important questions/dilemas that we face in this country. Lately I've been reading a little Freud and Shopenhauer and unfortunately I think I am in agreement with them about the general character of humanity......generally stupid! Yep......people are just generally not that smart and are easily susceptible to arguments that appeal to their vanity and their most base instincts. The hard part of this equation is getting our candidates to understand this innate stupidity of people and tailor their message to appeal to it. Bill, where are you bro?
January 2, 2006 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that is the basic problem for Democrats in power and the key for another generation of Democrats to push them out of the way. Because the only viable alternative to what we have now is an opposition that answers the dreams of a better America, not one that plays a historical Washington insiders game and offers a nanny state instead of promoting enlightenment and personal responsibility for the common good. Too many Democrat insiders are afraid of articulating common values that we share and need to share if we are going to call ourselves Americans. Personally, I don't find this problem in day to day life. Most people are good, just and fair. They wanna take care of their own would like to know that others can and are doing so, too. Winning for the sake of it is the same old same old.
January 2, 2006 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do not need the Evangelicals as a block. Among the Evangelicals there are MANY independent thinkers. They hide and pretend to be part of the crowd for the same reasons that Democratic Congressmen voted for the Iraqi war. All they need is a reason to vote against the directions at church.
They will NOT vote for Hillary! If Hillary personally paid each of them $100 and went home and washed their dishes, they would still not vote for her. She is permanently tainted.
Show them respect and offer them public policies that are sensible and not wrapped up in identity poilitics first, and they can easily be broken away from the block.
They have seen the evangalist up close and know his dubious behavior much more than we do, so they aren't all that inclined to follow him blindly. Billy Sunday is long ago and Billy Graham is retired. The rest of them have each gained his own taint in his own way. Many evangelicals aren't stupid.
This is a country where no one wants to stand out from the crowd. Evangelical leaders take advantage of that, just like everyone else. But they cannot go into the voting booth with their sheep.
January 2, 2006 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do know this. When my mother was working in a law office, she would frequently see women who had recently divorced and were living off of Welfare who couldn't work. The reason they couldn't work, was because if they did work they would make just enough money to knock them off welfare, but because they had to pay for child care and other services they would actually have less money to live on.
Now the welform that we have in my state was designed to fix that by using a sliding scale rather than a cutoff.
The point being... Welfare hasn't worked the way it should work and needed to be changed. If you can prove to me that the present system is far worse than the old system and has resulted in more people on the streets rather than more people working... then good. But I haven't seen this happening in reality.
Farm subsidies is a bit of a different pickle. Again, it has problems, and we should acknowledge those not hide from them.
January 3, 2006 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
手机铃声 铃声下载 免费铃声 免费铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦铃声 三星铃声 三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声 手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载 小灵通铃声下载 真人铃声 MP3铃声下载 自编铃声 联通铃声下载 移动手机铃声下载 联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声 飞利浦铃声下载 特效铃声 搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声 铃声图片 MMF铃声下载 免费手机图片下载 免费手机点歌 手机短信 手机彩信 手机彩铃 康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载 迪比特手机铃声下载 手机和旋铃声 三星手机铃声 三星手机和弦铃声下载 波导手机铃声下载 熊猫手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声 科健手机铃声下载 海尔手机铃声下载 诺基亚手机铃声下载 手机和弦铃声 手机铃声图片下载 飞利浦手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声曲谱 小灵通手机铃声下载 手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声下载 联通CDMA手机铃声下载 松下手机铃声下载 东信手机铃声下载 联想手机铃声下载 中兴手机铃声下载 大显手机铃声下载 首信手机铃声下载 三星手机自编铃声 三星CDMA手机铃声 康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载 索尼爱立信手机铃声 手机铃声大全 三星手机铃声图片下载 手机特效铃声 手机铃声制作 三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声 松下手机自编铃声 飞利浦手机自编铃声 诺基亚手机自编铃声 摩托罗拉自编铃声 三星手机MP3铃声 手机MP3铃声制作软件 免费MP3铃声下载 摩托罗拉MP3铃声 三星MP3铃声下载 联通MP3铃声下载 中国移动铃声下载 中国联通手机铃声下载 免费联通手机铃声 联通铃声 联通用户手机铃声下载 联通手机和弦铃声下载 联通手机铃声图片下载 小灵通铃声免费下载 和弦铃声免费下载
免费下载三星铃声 诺基亚免费铃声下载 联通免费铃声下载 免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载 免费下载铃声 手机铃声免费下载 松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载 和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声图片下载 免费手机铃声下载网站 小灵通手机铃声免费下载 诺基亚手机铃声免费下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载 三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载 三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载 康佳和弦铃声下载 迪比特和弦铃声下载 阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载 夏新和弦铃声下载 西门子和弦铃声 诺基亚和弦铃声 联通和弦铃声 三星铃声下载 三星和旋铃声 三星T108铃声下载 三星手机铃声乐园 三星CDMA铃声下载 三星免费铃声 三星真人铃声 诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载 怎样下载小灵通铃声 真人铃声下载 真人真唱手机铃声下载 联通用户铃声下载 联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载 飞利浦630铃声下载 三星特效铃声 手机特效铃声下载 搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声 免费短信 短信笑话 幽默短信 经典短信 谜语短信 短信祝福 爆笑短信 生日短信 爱情短信 精彩短信 情人节短信 短信传情 节日短信 彩信图片 彩信动画 彩信相册 免费彩信下载 三星彩信 联通彩信 移动彩信 彩信铃声 免费彩铃下载 移动彩铃 联通彩铃 12530彩铃 小灵通彩铃 免费三星手机铃声 免费和弦铃声 手机图铃下载 免费图铃下载 待机彩图 三星手机待机彩图 丰胸铃声
网络游戏 免费游戏下载 小游戏 在线游戏 游戏外挂 游戏论坛 游戏点卡 联众游戏 泡泡堂游戏 游戏攻略 FLASH游戏 单机游戏下载 美女 美女图片 美女写真 美女论坛 性感美女 美女走光 街头走光 走光照片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 免费电影在线观看 小电影 免费成人电影 免费激情电影 电影论坛 PP点点通电影下载 BT电影下载 免费三级电影 爱情电影 舒淇电影 韩国电影 周星驰电影 流行音乐 免费音乐下载 音乐在线 在线音乐 古典音乐 音乐试听 MP3音乐 MP3下载 MP3播放器 MP3随身听 免费MP3歌曲下载 QQ下载 申请QQ QQ幻想外挂 QQ表情 QQ挂机 珊瑚虫QQ QQ头像 QQ游戏 QQ空间代码 QQ个性签名 网络小说 玄幻小说 成人小说 爱情小说 小说下载 金庸小说 武侠小说 聊天室 语音聊天室 列车时刻表
手机铃声 铃声下载 免费铃声 免费铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦铃声 三星铃声 三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声 手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载 小灵通铃声下载 真人铃声 MP3铃声下载 自编铃声 联通铃声下载 移动手机铃声下载 联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声 飞利浦铃声下载 特效铃声 搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声 铃声图片 MMF铃声下载 免费手机图片下载 免费手机点歌 手机短信 手机彩信 手机彩铃 康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载 迪比特手机铃声下载 手机和旋铃声 三星手机铃声 三星手机和弦铃声下载 波导手机铃声下载 熊猫手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声 科健手机铃声下载 海尔手机铃声下载 诺基亚手机铃声下载 手机和弦铃声 手机铃声图片下载 飞利浦手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声曲谱 小灵通手机铃声下载 手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声下载 联通CDMA手机铃声下载 松下手机铃声下载 东信手机铃声下载 联想手机铃声下载 中兴手机铃声下载 大显手机铃声下载 首信手机铃声下载 三星手机自编铃声 三星CDMA手机铃声 康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载 索尼爱立信手机铃声 手机铃声大全 三星手机铃声图片下载 手机特效铃声 手机铃声制作 三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声 松下手机自编铃声 飞利浦手机自编铃声 诺基亚手机自编铃声 摩托罗拉自编铃声 三星手机MP3铃声 手机MP3铃声制作软件 免费MP3铃声下载 摩托罗拉MP3铃声 三星MP3铃声下载 联通MP3铃声下载 中国移动铃声下载 中国联通手机铃声下载 免费联通手机铃声 联通铃声 联通用户手机铃声下载 联通手机和弦铃声下载 联通手机铃声图片下载 小灵通铃声免费下载 和弦铃声免费下载
免费下载三星铃声 诺基亚免费铃声下载 联通免费铃声下载 免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载 免费下载铃声 手机铃声免费下载 松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载 和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声图片下载 免费手机铃声下载网站 小灵通手机铃声免费下载 诺基亚手机铃声免费下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载 三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载 三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载 康佳和弦铃声下载 迪比特和弦铃声下载 阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载 夏新和弦铃声下载 西门子和弦铃声 诺基亚和弦铃声 联通和弦铃声 三星铃声下载 三星和旋铃声 三星T108铃声下载 三星手机铃声乐园 三星CDMA铃声下载 三星免费铃声 三星真人铃声 诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载 怎样下载小灵通铃声 真人铃声下载 真人真唱手机铃声下载 联通用户铃声下载 联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载 飞利浦630铃声下载 三星特效铃声 手机特效铃声下载 搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声 免费短信 短信笑话 幽默短信 经典短信 谜语短信 短信祝福 爆笑短信 生日短信 爱情短信 精彩短信 情人节短信 短信传情 节日短信 彩信图片 彩信动画 彩信相册 免费彩信下载 三星彩信 联通彩信 移动彩信 彩信铃声 免费彩铃下载 移动彩铃 联通彩铃 12530彩铃 小灵通彩铃 免费三星手机铃声 免费和弦铃声 手机图铃下载 免费图铃下载 待机彩图 三星手机待机彩图 丰胸铃声
网络游戏 免费游戏下载 小游戏 在线游戏 游戏外挂 游戏论坛 游戏点卡 联众游戏 泡泡堂游戏 游戏攻略 FLASH游戏 单机游戏下载 美女 美女图片 美女写真 美女论坛 性感美女 美女走光 街头走光 走光照片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 免费电影在线观看 小电影 免费成人电影 免费激情电影 电影论坛 PP点点通电影下载 BT电影下载 免费三级电影 爱情电影 舒淇电影 韩国电影 周星驰电影 流行音乐 免费音乐下载 音乐在线 在线音乐 古典音乐 音乐试听 MP3音乐 MP3下载 MP3播放器 MP3随身听 免费MP3歌曲下载 QQ下载 申请QQ QQ幻想外挂 QQ表情 QQ挂机 珊瑚虫QQ QQ头像 QQ游戏 QQ空间代码 QQ个性签名 网络小说 玄幻小说 成人小说 爱情小说 小说下载 金庸小说 武侠小说 聊天室 语音聊天室 列车时刻表
December 24, 2006 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink