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.