It seems you're giving up on 2006 already.  You've got a point.
The Democrats won't win in 2008, or 2010, 2012, 2016.

Ultimately, America is moving to old Mexican style democracy.  Or an illusion of democracy.   One party runs things, the other party provides an illusion.

Matt

I am reminded of Lyndon Johnson's suggestion that if he announced the end to the bombing of North Vietnam his poll ratings would go up.  However, if he announced that he was starting to bomb North Vietnam is poll ratings would go up.  Americans tend to support the President in foreign policy and favor efforts that lead to victory.

Bush's problems in Iraq, not is lying and ineptitude, revolve around the cost of the war and that the promised easy victory has not materialized.  That does not mean that this war's answer to George McGovern, no matter how popular here at the Cafe, won't also lose 49 states.

The Democrats have to show real toughness.  What will the Democrats do that does not involve blaming the United States or pacificism to protect the United States and the Western World?  This does not preclude a globalist or internationalist set of policies but it does mean putting them forward and arguing for them in a way that is serious.

I'm not so sure about the one party thing. After Goldwater was beaten soundly in 1964 I remember the commentators speculating that the Republican Party was done for. Nixon was elected four years later.

FOREIGNID: 83423
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 12101
AUTHOR: grecco
DATE: 01/14/2006 11:22:26 AM

Actually, its mostly right.  American Democracy has historically been flawed.  Any polity that depends heavily on voter suppression is at best an imperfect Democracy.  The Jim Crow laws which persisted up until the 1960's were aimed at disenfranchising a major, often a majority population in a large region of the country.  The ultimate effect was to bias and poison national elections, as well as to produce local policies which were vicious.

Sadly, Jim Crow has returned in a number of respects.  Several states, particularly Florida, prohibit former convicted felons from voting.  Even after a person has paid his debt to society, and regardless of whether his original offence was minor or major, the person has his voting rights stripped from him.  He is rendered a second class citizen in the land of his birth.

Given the extreme disproportionate representation of blacks and minorities, it is clear that this provision acts to effectively disenfranchise minorities in proportion to the dominant population.  In essence, its Jim Crow all over again.

The parallels with overt racism do not stop there.  Prisoners are not allowed to vote, but their numbers are considered for purposes of allocation of regional representation.  Thus districts with heavy prison populations receive representation beyond their actual voting population.   This is highly reminiscent of the 2/5ths rule compromise with regard to slaves and representation in the original constitution for slave states.

These measures have the veneer of legitimacy through the application of criminal law.  But in a nation as racially divisive as America, this bears a second look.  Indeed, a careful examination of the American justice system reveals, it is far from 'colour blind' in terms of policing, charges, penalties and representation.

Beyond that, there is a long history of voter suppression, originally used in conjunction with Jim Crow laws.  Although arguably, voter suppression and manipulation dates back well before the Civil War.

Voter suppression in America exists today and is apparently seen as a legitimate tactic by the Republican party.  Among its measures are 'push polls', misinforming likely Democratic voters, employing police presence for intimidation, and challenging prospective Democratic voters.   Voter suppression is an offense to Democracy, and only in America, of all the functioning true Democracies is it tolerated.

Beyond that, there are many other instances or allegation of corruption and vote or voter manipulation, including the Tammany group in old New York, the Democrat Daley machine in Chicago and the rise of Diebold voting in the last few elections.  Gerrymandering and similar tactics run rampant and are endorsed by both parties. 

There are running allegations that the Kennedy election of 1960 is corrupt.  Under the circumstances, it is clear that both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, as well as several senate and house races, were genuinedly corrupt.

Most disturbing for America is the rise of Diebold or computerized voting.  These voting systems feature proprietary software which is not open to public inspection or audit, they are easily hacked and their ownership and personnel have a record of partisan politics and criminal behaviour.   Diebold voting is seen in several sets of statistically anomalous results - notably Saxby Chamblis defeat of Max Cleland, Chuck Hagel's electoral victory, John Kerry's critical primary victories which established him as the Democrat challenger, anomalous referendum results and of course Bush's victory in Iowa.  These anomalies are characterized by wide overnight electoral swings, as in the Cleland case, results which are inconsistent with prior polling, with exit polls, or with other control comparison electoral results.   It is notable that the sorts of discrepancies and anomalies which accompany Diebold voting are not seen in anywhere near the same degree in most cases of non-fraudulent auditable voting.  The implication, not proven but weighting heavily, is that the Computerized voting is gaming the system.  The inference is fraud.

Regardless of whether actual fraud exists, and we acknowledge it is not proven, the unverifiable and unauditable nature of computerized voting in the United States means that the system must be considered fatally compromised.   There is no way to prove that the United States computerized voting systems have integrity.  Thus the integrity of the United States electoral system as a whole cannot be demonstrated.

In other jurisdictions, this would be a major issue.  In the context of the United States, with its long history of vote fraud, voter suppression and legal voter disenfranchisement, this is damning.

The United States is at or is approaching a point where it cannot legitimately be called a Democracy.   Or at best, it is approaching the point of Mexican Democracy circa 1915-1975.

It is disturbing that the Democratic Party has not brought any of these issues front and center.  The United States seems perfectly willing to accept legal disenfranchisement (the new Jim Crows) without question.  It is simply not an issue for either major party.   The United States also seems reasonably prepared to tolerate, with some distaste, voter suppression as 'just dirty but legal tricks.'   I note some protests by the Democratic party, particularly in Iowa, but these protests were brief and are largely ignored by the party. 

The Democratic Party in Congress and in states seems prepared to collude with gerrymandering in order to safeguard their own seats and the electability of their own members - as a result of Republican and Democratic collusion, it is estimated that less than 5% of seats in congress are likely to swing in any election, regardless of the mood of the nations voters.  95% of Congress consists of safe incumbent seats.  Democratic protests of gerrymandering, as in Texas, seem more like squawks of outrage at the gerrymandering being directed to screw them, rather than concerns for integrity. 

There have been protests by Democrats of Diebold voting and Diebold systems, but there is an overall lack of willingness to really contest or put this issue forward.  The Diebold cause is confined to a handful of 'cranks' at the margins of the party and of congress.

While it is easy to argue that the Republican party are the leaders and primary beneficiaries of fraud and corruption, it is impossible not to note a Democratic party record of participation, acquiescence and submission.

Electoral or Democratic standards are not a static thing of course.  The United States flawed and racist democracy of 1791 was still a model for the world.   Democratic systems of the 19th century usually excluded women, and often disenfranchised the poor.  Nevertheless, standards for Democracy evolved with time.

The United States is not consistent with modern standards for universal representation, proportioning, fairness or integrity.  America is decades, perhaps generations behind the curve, and falling further and further behind. 

If present trends continue, it will simply not be a legitimate Democracy, but a carefully maintained social pretence, not unlike Saddam Hussein's or the USSR's sham elections and referendums.

Put it this way: there are two sorts of reasons, both compelling, for the U.S. to behave less arrogantly towards other nations. One is that we're not, as we tend to think we are, entirely virtuous and rightfully fearful. The other is that, assuming we are rightfully fearful--that all the exaggerated menaces our psyches conjure up really were there--still, the most effective way to counter them is to take into account the interests of other nations and work in concert with them.  

So a smart Democratic candidate will (at least in the general election) never deny that our enemies are numerous and eight feet tall, nor deny that they are entirely evil and we without moral blemish. But he or Hillary will stress that other nations can be of assistance to us and can act in ways, if they're pissed, that make us somewhat less secure.

The legitimacy of preemption and of unilateralism as principles should never be questioned.

What of democratization? The notion that an elected Egyptian or Saudi government would be better behaved than the regimes presently in charge is more than a little dubious. Yet it's also true that unfettered support of repressive regimes may do us more harm than good.

Probably we're in no case speaking of an issue that will sway many votes. But Democrats must be unswervingly nationalistic, and in that spirit they could perhaps attack a democratizing Republican from the right.

 

Heres a message, 
 
Why not take the High Road? We're nationalistic because of the need to fight an enemy, some of our leaders created.

I read an article a while back,  that the CIA had declared war on the Taliban.prior to the 9/11 attack. 

Could reasonable people conclude that if your having an organization of the United States, declaring a secret war, that the  opposing side would strike back? What are you an idiot?

This President with all his tough talk NOW,  after, the fact of leaving America vulnerable. Remember he refused to read memo's about Bin laden determined to Strike America, He had the Phoenix memo about flying schools, the list goes on.
 
What kind of person allows so many people to die, at the Twin Towers because he declares a secret war, but doesn't prepare the nation. Of course he had to declare preemptive strikes after his failure of 9/11.
 
Now at least when he does attack a nation preemptively, the nation is prepared for counter attacks. Or is it? I hope Katrina isn't the model of preparedness.

Democrats are now left in a position to clean up the mess. We always have. Budget deficits, Depressions, Worker rights (Democratic strong points)  

We know we can't just walk away, America under Democratic leadership will do the right thing by defending its people, Not some showboating attempts at Homeland Security, after the attack, as this President let occur. Same with Katrina how many days advance notice did we have?

Now you got a President who thinks American citizens are the Enemy, suspension of rule of law. wiretaps. Whats with this guy, does he even care? 
 
What a showboat! He alienated the World, now the World knows too,  it has to now clean up the mess. Bush and his nationalistic friends, wanted war, they got it. this tough talking,  tough boy created.   

Because of the war it has created problems on the Domestic scene. Democrats can and will address this to.
Unlike this President, Democrats and those Republicans who recognize the failure of this regime, can walk and chew gum, at the same time. We have done it in the past and can deliver results that benefit and properly defend the American people. 

Your right Mr. President it is time for a regime change, please leave and don't let the door hit you, take your trouble making friends with you. 

Remember to Vote 
    




     

The Florida repression of the African-American vote was part of the way that Bush's forces stole Florida in 2000. This was no accident. A percentage of Americans were not upset by this because of the latent racism that still infects many in our society. Dr. King's work is not done.

another example of a basically well-intentioned little special op started by one president and ended by another that caused us quite a bit of trouble in the end was trying to expedite humanitarian relief supply in Somalia.

His national security campaign relied heavily on a strategy of, well, lying -- missile gap, etc. -- and an array of hawkish posturing that led to the near-destruction of the world (Cuban Missile Crisis) and the Vietnam War.

I have known this since JFK was elected, but, Matt, you are the first one I have seen recognize it. I'm not sure where this leads us, and I feel very strongly that JFK was wrong to campaign in that way, but the reality is that the hawkish, belligerent candidate usually wins.

I think I would like to see the Democrats push for a policy of really tough diplomatic moves - examples might be disallowing imports from countries who cross us, calling in all debts from other such countries, selling down the currency of countries that support our "enemies", etc. These are virtual acts of war, but far, far less so than any bombing. None of this can ever happen since our corporations would lose some money, and we all know that corporate profits trump everything today.

What will the Democrats do that does not involve blaming the United States or pacificism to protect the United States and the Western World?
Stop starting wars of choice and produce more healthy, educated Americans.  Good for us.  Good for the world.  Win or lose we have to get off the idea that "toughness" is a positive value regardless of its purpose and that war is good regardless of the cause or consequences. 

I consider myself a "moderate.  I have voted for Democrats and Republicans.  I think the two party system is useful.  I am from "fly over" country.  That being said, let me make a few observations:

1.  The Democratic Party is not fit to govern.  Look at the "leadership" as exemplified by the members of the Senate Judiciary committee during the recent Alito hearings.  Creepy and obnoxious.  They showed their absolute lack of seriousness by walking out, Feinstein excepted, during the testimony by federal judges.  Sad and not worthy of a party to be taken seriously.  I notice that the hearings are not being discussed on this blog.  The whole country saw it as a crotch shot to the Democrats. 

2.  Have you heard some of the things that come out of Howard Dean's mouth?  He is the best weapon the Republicans have.  He may play well to the "base" but he doesn't "sell" to the average American voter.

3.  Regardless of what you think, Cindy Sheehan came across as weird and not balanced to your average American.  She got worse and worse.  I feel sorry for her but don't take her and people that support her seriously.

4.  Louis Farakhan is a racist bigot.  When Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton stand on a stage with him they reduce their effectiveness.  If Rush Limbaugh stood on a stage with David Duke we would never hear the end of it.

5. I think many Americans detect a sense of condescension from the people they perceive as the brains behind the Democratic party.

6.  The Republican's behavior in power has been atrocious.  They deserve a comeuppance but the Democratic party is not going to be able to deliver it.  Americans are looking for just leadership and they are more willing to support a party that looks like it is run by grown-ups.

Personally, I don't care who is in power as long as I think they have the best interests of the country at heart.   The Republicans strike me as a bunch of power hungry, money grubbers while the Democrats come across as bunch vengeful, snarky whiners who want to impose some sort of liberal theocracy on the country.  Given that choice, I will take the power hungry money grubbers.  

4.  Louis Farakhan is a racist bigot.  When Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton stand on a stage with him they reduce their effectiveness.  If Rush Limbaugh stood on a stage with David Duke we would never hear the end of it.

None of these three individuals have much to do with the politics or policies of the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson has been as marginal a figure as David Duke since the mid-90s. Al Sharpton has a significant public profile but is essentially a solo rock star; he has no serious voting base or influence in the party.

Rush Limbaugh has stood on the stage with many figures at least as repugnant as David Duke; he is himself as repugnant a figure as David Duke. And you haven't heard the end of it.

Tanker boy:

1. The Republican Party is destroying our country, our Constitution, the environment, and Lord knows what else, but you'll take them because the Dems are for a liberal theocracy. What are you thinking? George W. Bush is ruling by James I's old Divine Right of Kings doctrine and you're worried about a liberal theocracy.

2. Cindy Sheehan is a hero of mine and I support her. Thanks for not taking me seriously. Notice I don't accord you the same disrespect.

3. Farakkan is not endorsed by the leadership of the Democratic Party just as David Duke was not endorsed when he ran as a Republican in LA a number of years ago.

4. I think Howard Dean has turned a bit wimpy since he's going after the big money. The fact that he used to be courageous in speaking the truth obviously upset a lot of big money people.

Toughness is almost the very definition of an American value.  The failure to seem tough will guarantee Republicans dominating our country for years if not decades.

 Secondly, the world is a dangerous place and only the United States had and will lead the fight about the dangers.  The idea that leaving a monster like Saddem in place when we not only tossed him out of Kuwait and would do so again but stupidly encouraged the Kurds and Shia to rise up against him and did nothing to help them and then continued on a daily basis to bomb Iraq, strikes me as the definition of immoral.  Democrats do not have be for rash use of military force. Nor do they have to be for American going it alone.  But they better have a solution for the Rwandas, Bosnias and Iraqs and now Irans of this world other than it is not our problem.

<span class="Apple-style-span">Tankerboy:</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">I'm from fly over country too, and I've got a few comments.  First, everyone thinks they have the best interests of the country at heart.  Second, what in god's name is a "liberal theocracy"?  I honestly don't know, but I fail to see how it could possibly be worse than the sanctimonious corruption we see from the current crop of powerful Republicans. </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">Third, you say: </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">"5. I think many Americans detect a sense of condescension from the people they perceive as the brains behind the Democratic party."  Well,</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span"> I've got news for you, this is a bullshit canard.  For example, I shared a gin martini last night with country club Republican whose condescension would make you blush.  But don't take my word for it, take it from disgraced Republican Michael Scanlon himself, writing to Mr. Jack Abramoff:</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">"</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees ... Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gthttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/3/21544/6648<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">Wow!  That's a mighty elitist attitude for a Republican operative is it not?  </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt

sphealy: Some thoughts inspired by your rating of tankerboy's comment.

Do you realize that you prove a least one of tankerboy's points, maybe more, by rating his personal opinion post "unhelpful"? Think of it in his shoes, and how he must take your rating.

Doesn't it occur to anyone but me that to win elections, Democrats have to win over the vote of some self-described independents? Doesn't hearing what they think help you do that? It's not helpful? You don't have to laud it, but to imply it's unwelcome says to me: go away, we don't want to hear what independents think, they're finks and we don't need their vote.

If you don't like it, if you think he/she is falling for GOP talking points, say so. But to imply by rating they should be quiet about what they think, and not share it, instead of welcoming such personal opinion, so that it can be addressed, strikes me as a really dumb thing for liberals to do.

Yes, it's not the height of discourse, but to me it's clearly no different than hundreds of comments that get highly rated here that say things exactly the same about Republicans, i.e.  "The Republican Party is not fit to govern.  Look at the 'leadership' as".

Finally, I must admit that I'd personally love it if raters here were just as demanding of lefty posts, and downrated all the posts that have a slight ranty edge, and were personal opinions about what conservatives are like, but I've accepted that that's not going to happen. Especially since such I see such comments often get real high 'slap on the back, you go boy/girl' ratings.

BTW tankerboy is no DeLay conservative and considers liberals his "friends." (Possibly because he goes in for the name calling just like many of them do? :-) )