There was a very good thread at dKos about the evil of the Reagan era. The fact that so many of the current gang infesting the White House, including Alito, is certainly not coincidence. These creeps just keep returning to power whenever the Republicans "win". In the off years, they just receive fat rewards in the industries they actually work for, either as lousy but connected CEOs, lobbyists, or "think tank" moles. It really is the same crew cycle after cycle and they learn from their mistakes.
A point I made in the discussion is that a large number of our intrepid Democratic leadership, the ones who have achieved very senior positions due to a misplaced reverance to seniority, were there all through the Reagan years. They did virtually nothing to stop the rape of the economy with incredible tax cuts for the wealthy. They sat on their thumbs while the will of Congress was blatantly flaunted and the people of South and Central America were suppressed and murdered. Incredibly, we didn't see any of them calling for impeachment, at least not as a party when international treaties were shredded, blatant war crimes were condoned and vast sums of money were re-directed without any accounting whatsoever. Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it? Only the location has changed. Not the Democrats inside the beltway.
It's true we had the Iran contra hearings. There were still a few journalists back then. Where was the party's outrage when the convicted criminals were pardoned by George II?
I've always been a hold your nose and vote Democrat. I share your anger and angst Paradox. As far as I can see, we have two political problems, Republicans everywhere and the Corporatist claque of "Democratic" advisors, "leaders" and campaign "managers". Obviously, there are many well intentioned and even good folks laboring in Congress. They are hamstrung, however, by a seemingly corrupting fog of constant campaigning,(money) a pathetic sense of comity (willful gullibility) and a relentless need to seek re-election, no matter how much one has to compromise one's sense of justice and service.
Frankly, I despair of ever accomplishing a return to the never fully realized ideals of the American experiment. I just can't let go of the urge to try. We need every elected Democrat, even Joe Lieberman to hope to succeed.
What we DON'T need, however, are the incompetent, corrupt and questionable DC insiders, such as Reed, From, Shrum etc. etc. (ad nauseum). The netroots provide some hope. The beltway boys must be ignored if we ever hope to win back our country. I declare war on all of the wormtongues weakening our party. Rahm Emanuel is an ass, but he's our ass and he needs to be shown the light. Howard Dean seems to understand this. Screw the beltway wisdom. EVERY district must be contested. Politics IS local and the party will succeed if we just bypass the "experts" in Washington.
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 21, 2006 06:45 AMWhat we need is simple:
A massive truth assault upon the GOP. Tell the fucking truth about the evil bastards and force them to defend themselves.
They can't. Oh, they can lie and distract and smear, but ultimately they cannot hide from the truth of who they are.
Shine that light on those cockroaches. They can scurry away, but eventually they run out of corners and cracks to crawl into.
Here's an example: EVERY TIME KKKarl Rove speaks, EVERY Democratic response MUST remind Americans WHO this bastard is: A CIA-outing traitor. When that fuck talks about troops, you fucking remind America that fat KKKarl the Chickenhawk has spent his career smearing veterans.
This shit isn't hard. You just tell the truth. The more the GOP rats bellyache about your "hateful" and "partisan" and "shill" attacks, the better you're doing. Remember, THEY ARE THE ENEMY. Forcing them to show their visceral hatred towards you is a good thing.
Just tell the truth about them. When they try to defend themselves by distraction and distortion, just fucking tell the truth again. And again. And again.
Posted by God Of War at January 21, 2006 06:55 AMHow to beat the GOP on national security? Turn their words and actions against them. 1) They do not understand the threat. 2) They’ve mismanaged the war on terror, the financial and the military aspects.
Posted by aflounder at January 21, 2006 07:02 AMSimple: If the GOP is so good at national security and the war on terror, why is bin Laden still out there? Clearly this is just another example of the Bush administration's incompetence. If that doesn't resonate with the terrified masses, nothing will.
Posted by ann at January 21, 2006 07:05 AMMolly Ivans had a great piece in The Oregonian today. I haven't seen it referenced in the blogosphere yet. I'm not much of a techie so I can't link it, but I'm sure you can find it. She says much the same as you have said.
Posted by Don Beal at January 21, 2006 07:23 AMby Molly Ivins
Posted by Sharon at January 21, 2006 07:56 AMHere is the Ivins link .
Posted by phidipides at January 21, 2006 07:58 AMAnd meanwhile, the National Debt is, as of today, $27,455.00 per person and rising.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 08:07 AMI wish we had thousands of Molly Ivins. She never fails to tell it like it is. Her humor is well known, and her ability to make the truth direct and simple is legendary.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 08:14 AMThe Working for Chnage link leads to Thursday's column. Molly must really be pissed. There wasn't even one teeny weeny joke or even a typed drawl in it.
The DFW Star Telegram link is Tuesday's column.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 21, 2006 08:19 AMgod of war says it.
ann says it,
sara says it at next hurrah.
"true facts" man.
it's all about true facts.
and repetition of true facts.
lots of repetion.
it really is time to quite treating rove like some potent bogeyman.
rove is, in truth and in fact, and despite all p.r. to the contrary, a singularly incompetent presidential adviser. he is (in conjuction with bush's inherent unsuitabliity for the job of president) personally responsible for the administration's horrendous five year failure of husbandry -
in rove's tenure,
american society has not progressed, has failed to thrive, in terms of
environmental problems it faces,
security problems it faces,
fiscal problems it faces,
scientific opportunities available to it,
population health and aging problems facing it,
elections and inclusive participation in elections.
feel free to add to the list;
each item is an arrow in our quiver. but we will need lots of fletchers because we must launch flights of these arrows -
against rove the presidential adviser,
and against the bush administration in general.
with respect to rove's latest pronounements,
it's the same old baloney.
rove is a one trick pony.
the only political tactic he knows is to employ a highly emotional issue (gay marriage, terrrorism, soldiers' risks, an opponent's sexuality, sexual deviancy, or courage) and use it to cloud discussion and debate on that issue and,
and this is important,
to preclude debate on other issues.
that is precisely what is happening now. this rovian fatwah on fact and reasoned debate is being launched now in order to set the terms of discussion off the 2006 congressional elections.
the antidote to this poison?
fact, and repetition of fact.
flights of fact.
where do i go first on the web-log-world in the morning?
to "think progress".
fact, and repetition.
and by the way, has anyone observed instances in which rove was personally held accountable for administration failures? i haven't.
it's time he was.
fact, repetition of fact, humor, and ridicule applied to bush's rasputin (my apologies to the demented monk).
i could go on, but this is long-winded enough, metaphors are falling all over each other, and i need my second glass of iced tea.
If the Rep's had 1/2 the dirt on the Dems they would make sure there wasn't even a Dem party left when they were through and then destroy what was left of the country.
This week we saw what could happen over at the Post and MSNBC when the bloggers united. Lesson #1 for both sides: we can do it; Lesson #2 just because we can needs to translate into choosing our battles; Lesson #3 MSM needs bloggers and bloggers need MSM.
it's already out there - Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter, and Dean have already said it. here's what I've heard:
national security: everybody stop freaking out (worked w/social security - there is no crisis); time for cooler heads to prevail, not to hand over our liberties to king Bush; Bush's policy fails because it ties every kid with a cap gun into a massive, impossible to manage conspiracy. you can't fight a phantom. dems want to prioritize threats and go after the worst first. they also want to stop cutting important things like, say, FEMA and assistance for firefighters. get them all on the same channel already. it's not hard if we stay calm.
iraq - get the arab league involved. Egypt must be brought in, we must phase out. stop hemmoraging cash to Halliburton and get more iraqi reconstruction contracts.
taxes - we have to stop living off our national credit card (china). end earmarks, restore debate on bills to kill some of this rampant pork spending. Hastert, master of sneaking in those big pork sandwiches, has to go.
Posted by raisin at January 21, 2006 08:58 AMParadox got it right at the beginning. The Democrats have no strategy.....
They just run about doing what they "feel" is right and then just being "AGAINST" everything.
No drilling in Anwar-if I hear one more democrat say that oil is 10 years away, I'm going to puke, if the dems had let us drill there starting in the 90's we would have that oil today.
No limitations on Abortion-This is a sacred right to allow unrestricted disposal of babies even at the last moment before birth. (For a wonderful expose', I'd recommend James Taranto's column on the ROE EFFECT. He surmises with many facts, that ROE v. WADE has cost the LIBERALS THE SENATTE, HOUSE AND WHITEHOUSE.
How? By killing off the potential voters. Roe was 1972, those children killed-most likely to liberal mothers, or those most likely to vote democrat, are now dead, ergo, all of the millions of abortions between 1972-1990 would have been eligible to have voted in 2008.
Oh, and you are against stoping criminals from voting.
Against having reasonable safety precautions, such as an ID to vote. (you can't rent a video without ID but damn if you should be stopped from voting)
Against disclosing the Cisneoros (sic) investigative report.
Against fighting the war on terror, by denying that there is a war on terror.
Against admitting that the Democrats said the exact same things when Clinton was in office about Sadamm Hussein, that Bush said before the war...
etc. etc. etc.
Posted by carpediem at January 21, 2006 09:22 AMMolly Ivins:
I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.
If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.
What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?
Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."
This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, emboldened by "a string of bad new from the Middle East ... into calling for premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.
Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war -- from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.
You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.
Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.
Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 09:22 AMYeah, I would say Molly has lost some of her humor.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 09:28 AMI agree with a comment I read in today's SF Chron.
He essentially said that the Senate should defer a vote on whether Judge Alito should be confirmed until full hearings and an investigation by an independent counsel and Congress can be completed regarding Bush's admitted illegal domestic surveillancee of the American people in violation of the Constitution.
Molly Ivins:
I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.
Posted by Not Clinton Jr. at January 21, 2006 09:33 AMThe beltway dems can't muster the courage to tell their constituents that "roll over and play dead, and take it up the ass if it's alright with the repubs" is their strategy.
I read in some comment or other that Reid distanced himself from Gore's speech when Jim Lehrer asked him what he thought (not that the Snews Hour covered the speech at all.)
Posted by Sharon at January 21, 2006 09:33 AMSorry Sharon, I didn't realize your link was the same article by Molly. Oh well.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 09:33 AMIt bears repeating, Judith (and will catch the eye of those who don't follow links.)
Posted by Sharon at January 21, 2006 09:35 AMWell Molly, one man stood up named Paul Wellstone, and guess what happened to him. There's that small plane accident again, just like Mel Carnahan's.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 09:36 AMCome to think of it, why is it always Democrats who have plane accidents? (Thanks Sharon)
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 09:39 AMRead Molly Ivins!
Posted by cleve at January 21, 2006 09:54 AMThe consequences of confusing 'national security' and national security are potentially disastrous.
Actual competence in protecting national security, and winning on the campaign issue of 'national security' are different things -- one may actually preclude the other.
'National security' the election issue has nothing to do with national security.
the War on Terror isn't about protecting Americans or eradicating al-Qaeda, but about the vicarious thrill of participating, even in a passive, peripheral way, in a global, epochal conflict. And only those who sense the moment's historicity can be considered equal to the task. So Bush may be playing Mr. Magoo on the world stage, but at least he "gets it," and that's far preferable to some small-minded man who won't validate the neocon's clash-of-civilations-style fantasies.
The next election, like the last one, will be a poker game played with the bodies of dead Moslems, and the banker is one of the players at the table.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at January 21, 2006 09:55 AMIt is so frustrating to see Democrats not stand up for their Country and those of us who support them (or did at one time). Please, please will someone speak out and tell the truth. Let Gore's voice become the voice of millions of Americans.
"no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it."
Karl Rove thinks in a way that practically no one else does. And when he spills the beans, you better pay attention.
"Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world."
Now, for all of you Lakoff framing intelligentsia, here is the elephant on the other side of the blindfold. Can you feel it? Now do you understand why Republicans will continue to win, despite all the corruption? Let me make it just a little clearer:
PEOPLE NEED TO FEEL SECURE
But don't tell anyone. It might affect the whole strategy you have for the 2006 elections. It may determine the tack you take in every argument you have with your wingnut family. It may determine the success you have in defeating a Supreme Court nominee. It may decide how successful you are in aiding the elderly who are getting screwed over by the new Big Pharma prescription Medicare plan. Please, please don't tell anyone.
You wouldn't want to spill the beans.
Posted by Jim K at January 21, 2006 09:59 AMGood job ignoring the trolls guys, I am not so into being cordial today.
If you neo-cons wish to trade criminalizing abortion for the destruction of America you are really even more fucking stupid than I previously thought.
Listen, there is more to life than forcing women into being incubators. Take just one-eighth of your anti-abortion fucking energy and use it to make sure that every living child in this country is fed and clothed and loved and not living in an environment of abuse and addiction. Just one-eighth of your fucking control women and their bodies at all costs ambition and turn it into something good.
I am not willing to Throw Away the Great American Experiment on a couple of hot button issues. Take your goddamned bible literally rather than look in the mirror at the parables and learn from them you faciast fucks. I am really tired of the perversion of religion for your political means.
As for solutions, it is my feeling that all of the Progressive Groups are so fine tuned that they are missing the one message, one liners that the neo-con bible thumping right has the advantage of. Blanket everything under the word of fucking god and you've got the vote of those who look to their cultist preachers to tell them what to do.
You are all complicit in the illegal acts and Crimes Against Humanity of this administration. When they are jailed and marched into the Hague, you who support them should be jailed as well.
If all of the Congresspeople and all of their staffers and all of the Progressive Groups fanned out over the next week into every city and every town and filled every gym and every meeting room with town halls to discuss the Constitutional Crisis that we are in, just maybe a few people would wake up.
I am really tired of this war being fought in a closet where no one sees the soldiers coffins draped in flags - no one sees our dead coming home, which I find completely disrespectful to the soldiers and their families. No one is yet paying the price for this war. Where are the rations? Where are the tax increases? Where is the draft?
You bet your ass those living in gated communities would be upset of jr was forced to go fight this illegal war.
We really need to get louder.
Posted by Anjha at January 21, 2006 10:02 AMI think you'll see one hell of a race in CA-11. I've been following it very closely at my blog Say No to Pombo.
Pombo is about to be taken to task in the primary by Pete McCloskey (the former Congressman, and co-author of the Endangered Species Act). If McCloskey doesn't win, he'll damage Pombo and soften him up for the Democratic nominee, whichever one wins the primary. And that Democratic nominee will not only be helped by tremendous activism coming from the greater Bay Area but by the fact that Pombo will most likely be targetted by the big environmental groups that can do electoral politics (Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, and Clean Water Action). I am involved in the Democratic Party grassroots in the East Bay and I can tell you that almost everyone I speak to is energized about taking Pombo on.
Posted by Say No to Pombo at January 21, 2006 10:05 AMPEOPLE NEED TO FEEL SECURE
NYC voted against Bush in 2004.
CT voted against Bush in 2004.
MA voted against Bush in 2004.
NJ voted against Bush in 2004.
PA voted against Bush in 2004
No. Va. voted against Bush in 2004.
DC voted against Bush in 2004.
MD voted against Bush in 2004.
The friends, neighbors, and relatives of those killed on 9/11 feel plenty secure without King Georgs.
The people who had planes, and buildings, and flame, and death, fall on their heads on 9/11 feel plenty secure without King George.
Go back and change your sheets.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at January 21, 2006 10:14 AMI think that we need to all call the DNC and tell them to quit listening to their "political advisers" and start listening to their base.
The WH calls the mega-church-cult-preacher-leader on a daily basis. That is where they get their advice.
Keep 'em scared with a vengful god and OBL.
That is their advice. That is what they follow.
The DNC needs to start listening to their base - which is moderate America, not the far left. There is no "far left" - this is again a myth created by the talking heads.
We simply want the Constitution and the laws of our country followed. We want security in our persons and our homes. We want jobs that pay a living wage. We want healthcare and good education and safety nets when we fall. We want our elderly cared for. We want unions and job security. We want a voice. We want a clean and healthy environment. We want fiscal responsiblity and laws for the people written by our representatives and not by lobbyists. It really is simple.
I think that we should start an email campaign to the DNC. Tell them to quit listening to the "experts" who are not experts at all.
For christs sake, we the people are the experts.
Posted by Anjha at January 21, 2006 10:23 AMYou've got it Paradox. It's not looking good. The GOP is looking like shit but the Democrats are still AWOL -- expecting to win by default just as they have since 2000.
Posted by Marie at January 21, 2006 10:34 AMCharlie Cook knows that if he's wrong about an election, he'll lose subscribers to his political report. Therefore, since most congressional races end up hardly changing anything, it benefits him to make the same prediction. And in fact, in a neutral environment, that's what happens. When you've got a presidential race with no clear front-runner, you'll probably see little change in Congress. But a strong tide against the Republicans right now will probabaly lead to picking up some seats we never could have imagined winning. All Cook is doing now, is giving the CW and assuming a relatively neutral environment for the Republicans. What we need to do is throw that conventional wisdom overboard and make an all out effort to retake the House. At worst, we'd gain seats but fall short of a majority. We could probably get it the next time. But if we go the route of only running 20 competitive races, we'll end up gaining no ground.
Posted by dole4pineapple at January 21, 2006 12:07 PMOur biggest handicap in elections since 2000 has not been Republicans, but Democrats. In 2002, Daschle and Gephardt figured they could count on the traditional midterm losses for the president's party to keep their Senate majority and maybe pick up the House without doing anything themselves. So they ran on some vague message involving the economy that nobody could really understand. Then the Republicans ran on exploiting 9/11 and brought in the Chimp to the competitive races. And what a shock! The Republicans picked up the Senate and added seats to their House majority. Then, going into 2004, John Kerry and his campaign looked at the polls and decided that Bush was going down and all that he needed to do was to be as vague as possible on the issues so as not to offend people who might vote for him. That fit perfectly into the flip-flopper strategy, which mixed in with more 9/11 exploiting resulted in...another Republican victory. Now going into 2006, congressional Democrats see all sorts of Republican problems and have decided they can just count on the scandals and Iraq to deliver the majority back. So the party takes no position on Iraq or anything else. Maybe, this time, voter anger will be enough to knock out the Republican majority, but I wouldn't bet on it until the Democrats actually develop an election strategy. Expecting to win by default is one of the most historically stupid things any party can do. Just ask President Dewey about how campaigning on not offending people worked. Remember, the Kerry campaign would tell us the reason they weren't taking clear positions was because Bush was "destroying himself, and you never want to get in the way of an opponent who is destroying themselves." Whenever we do that, we just give our opponent time to get up off the ground and deliver a knockout blow without putting up a fist. Watch this "lobbying reform" carefully. The Democrats at risk of being outmaneuvered because many of their members don't want reform because they'd like a K Street Project themselves when they take over the Congress by default in 2007.
Posted by dole4pineapple at January 21, 2006 12:26 PMFear is all the GOP has going for it under Rove/Bush. They have ZERO accomplishments. All they can do is try to scare people into voting for them. It's easy to say that tactic has worked for them so far....but that would be incorrect. There was no "fear" at work in the 2000 election, perhaps in the 2002 election, but the 04 election was won on gay baiting, lies, hate and not much else. Take away the huge turnout of the Crazy Gay hating Religious Right and Kerry would have won. They are campaigning on fear, yes, but they are winning on hate issues that fan a small percent of voters, a percent just large enough, combined with a penchant for fraud, to win elections by a small %. The ability to paint Dems as weak is a time honored GOP tactic, but their races are won on hate, not fear.
Posted by T2 at January 21, 2006 12:29 PMI'm very new at this so please excuse me for not yet knowing how the HTML tags work
http://www.carpetbaggerreport.com has a similar story: Rove's 'ossified,' 'profoundly wrong' thinking. His last paragrah gave the Dems the following talking point. I added my own after his.
* If Dems are looking for a message to use in response to Rove's broadside, I'd recommend this one: If the Bush White House went after Osama bin Laden with the same passion they go after Democrats, the nation would be better off.
*Look at how this administration handled Katrina. Do you really trust them to protect you from terrorism?
Maybe, we should compile messages and send them to the Democratic Party. They seem to need all the help they can get.
Posted by MOBlue at January 21, 2006 02:30 PMMOBlue, I like your talking points because they are excellent pushback issues.
By-the-way, can I assume you are from Mo.? I live in St. Louis.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 03:24 PMparadox, excellent piece. I am also sick of seeing people give up before they've even started. Like the vote on Alito. What would the election of 2000 been like if the Bushs had weakly said, oh gees, we should just let them count the vote. Instead they proclaimed loud and long that Bush won until they made it look inevitable. There is no reason for the Democrats to not be more forceful and express how they are winners - again and again and again until they believe it themselves.
Posted by Mary at January 21, 2006 04:16 PMYeah for Molly.
Posted by Mary at January 21, 2006 04:19 PM"What would the election of 2000 been like if the Bushs had weakly said, oh gees, we should just let them count the vote."
Mary, excellent point.
Thank you very much for that news, Say No to Pombo blogger. I'm sure I've met you before in Pleasanton. You got a fresh bookmark in my second blog column--there are forty in each. I'll try to get around there more often.
[I'm back at work for my corporate masters]
Thanks too from all the kind words from everyone.
Posted by paradox at January 21, 2006 05:06 PMLook at how this administration handled Katrina. Do you really trust them to protect you from terrorism?
We don't even have to talk about Katrina. bin Laden is still at large and terrorist attacks continue to increase. Still feeling safe?
Posted by ann at January 21, 2006 07:58 PM"You bet your ass those living in gated communities would be upset of jr was forced to go fight this illegal war.
Those in gated communities should remember they can't build walls high enough if there were to be a revolution.
Posted by at January 21, 2006 09:30 PMPleasanton, what a lovely area Paradox. Have a cousin who lives there.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 09:32 PMHillary's cowardly and cynical abandonment of liberal policies to better position herself for a run at the presidency is unacceptable. The only long term strategy for defending the freedom and equality that make our country great from the small minded religious red state imbeciles is confrontation, not collaboration!
With respect to Iraq, the invasion has been a geo-politial disaster, effectively handing control of Southern Iraq and therefore the heart of the Middle East to the Shiite fundamentalists in Iran. Our military is now stretched to the breaking point, we have predictably failed to pacify Iraq, and through our failure we have pointed out to the world the limits of American military power. With no credible military threat, we have no leverage to negotiate a solution to the increasingly serious threat posed by Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Even aside from the lying about WMD, the flagrant disregard for the Geneva Conventions, the renditions, the torture, the domestic spying, and the corruption, the total failure in strategic understanding about how to deal with the Middle East is shocking (Remember the "we will be welcomed as liberators?" Whooops!)
That Hillary Clinton or any Democrat supports Bush's Iraq policy is an abomination. That she wants to perform a Republican burlesque to appeal to Red state voters is revolting. She should be thrown out of the Democratic Party, as far as I am concerned.
Posted by Gonzo8 at January 21, 2006 11:22 PMtoo little, too late . . .
What good would "winning back the Congress" do for either Democrats or America? I mean, the executive and judicial, traditionally part of the three prongs of the separation of powers, have in fact joined hands and are ONE prong of a two-prong process where the second prong has withered and died.
Congress has no power. I repeat, no power. They only make law and appropriate money, but they don't enforce law, and they don't spend money. The laws are enforced by the executive and judicial, and the money is spent by the executive exclusively. Money appropriated for Afghan adventures to solidify a pipeline for Caspian oil was instead spent on an impending invasion of Iraq which at the time had not been approved by Congress, and which should NEVER have been approved either, like the tax cuts.
We have a totalitarian state now, or hadn't you noticed? Check out the stifling of free speech, the gulags, the loaded kangaroo courts, the useless "go-along" legislature, the use of torture, the suspension of civil rights, and what they call "preemptive war." Remind you of any other state, say like Iraq under Saddam, or Russia under Stalin or Cuba under Fidel? You don't really need to see tanks in Market Square in Indianapolis to know that we repress just like China?
Don't think so? Try to get YOUR Congressman to admit that we wouldn't have gone into an Iraq whose chief export was olives and flour. Then try to get any major journalist to state the actual reason for the occupation of Iraq.
What keeps them all silent? Self interest.
Posted by SamSnedegar at January 22, 2006 03:46 AMHow about "truth +". Recipe for fun:
1.Save each and every comment Karl Rove makes about "the Democrats this . . . and the Democrats that . . ."
2. Wait for Patrick Fitzgerald to indict Rove. Begin marinating Rove in a fine broth concocted from the comments.
3. When the Rove trial begins, light grill and slowly bring to high heat.
4. During the trial, dredge Rove lightly in dry rub spices and brown his outside in a saucepan, sprinkling occasionally with comments regarding perjury, obstruction of justice and violations of the Espionage Act of 1917.
5. Upon conviction, place Rove on hot grill and roast over high heat until juices are clear, and Rove begins to spill the beans on higher-ups in order to obtain a departure from mandatory Federal sentencing guidelines.
6. Indict higher up. Repeat.
Posted by robert lewis at January 22, 2006 06:04 AMYou are very very right to worry about not having an electoral strategy for 2006/08. But reading this thread is revealing. No one here is even close to thinking about this challenge productively. If you don't agree that the party has to go about this using "systems and process" thinking, and "by the numbers" and analytically you are not going to like what I have to say.
Here is what I am taking from the comments on this thread, in nutshell form: We need to be truthtellers. We need to shine a light on how wrong the Republican party is, highlight their misdeeds, and turn their words and actions against them. We need to throw dirt at the current leadership. We need to clean house. We need to tell people they are living in an emerging totalitarian state. We need to emphasize that the last election was stolen ("if they had let us count all the votes...."). We need to convince people that government can and should do this or that (insert your favorite cause here). We must step up and impeach, block Alito, etc., etc. We have to start a revolution of some kind (what kind?, I would ask, and to what end? because revolutions are scary to people).
Let's pretend. Let's pretend we are a business, trying to get market share by attracting customers. How do you do that? You either do it by: (1) going to market with an absolutely terrific new product/service, or a significant revamping of the one you've been selling; or (2) reaching out to customers in a new, positive, and convincing way about the qualities and value of your product you have, via advertising and promotion and more effective sales channels. Or you do (1) and (2) together.
But most assuredly, you do (1) and/or (2) by having a very clear notion of why you have not been successful, and by understanding very well what the market is looking for and will be attracted to, segment by segment. You figure out which segments of the market are just not going to "switch" (so you don't waste time there) and conversely where there is a good chance that if you play your cards smart and execute the fundamentals you can make headway.
My impression of the Democratic party "strategy" as opposed to the Republican one (and I am neither, by the way) is that the Democrats have some kind of reverance for disorganization and a propensity to "knee jerk it". And they have a tendency to overestimate how "correct" they are in terms of what will impress people and what people will be convinced will be an improvement over the "current state".
I would advise the Democrats to start from the point of view of accepting that the general populace does NOT assume their party being in power would be an improvement AND that there is a reason why the so-called "conservative" movement has been attractive to so many in the past elections. And the Democrats have GOT to realize that their "brand identity" confuses people; people do not like to be confused about what they are being invited to buy. Someone in this thread observed that Republicans hold power by creating and peddling "fear". There is something to that, of course. But Democrats play into it by projecting a kind of mushy and cloudy image of what they would do if they had the power. That simply feeds the innate fear we have of the unknown.
Remember the "Contract with America"? Never mind WHAT it said, just remember that it said some things very clearly and gave people the impression that "what you see is what you'll get." It sounded new, bold, confident, and inspired. I imagine it was the product of lots of thinking about what "would sell", not just the product of some inspired nutcase putting down on paper what HE thought would capture peoples' attention. It didn't dwell on what Democrats thought or did, although that was "implied" --- it basically ignored them and expressed a view of the future. If we think the Democrats can make substantial inroads now without something as definitive and compelling as that was in its time, we are delusional.
Kerry and Ivens both said important things. But if the past is any indication, there will be no "Democratic Electoral Action Plan" flowing from those introductory essays. And that would be a real shame, considering the concerns that so many people have.
Posted by Terry OTT at January 22, 2006 06:57 AMIn short, you're not going to win back the house or the senate.
you guys just have too much gain to ground, and the republicans still have you by the balls on national defense and values.
Posted by Iron Bill at January 22, 2006 10:43 AMNice article in NYT about gas reciept giveaways by the administration. Damn Republicans. They just give and give away YOUR tax money. Should your tax money be going to feather the nests of crooks at Worldcom, Enron and other crooked organizations? Do you want to take drugs that aren't properly regulated because people (Read: Rumsfeld/Aspartame) are able to avoid regulation thanks to their contacts? Do you want a government where there is no accountability, because there are no whistle-blowers to tell the people about malfeasance? ('White House malfeasance is a matter of National Security,' they say, and for once they're right, but for entirely different reasons. But then doublespeak is their native language.) A government that at every turn is trying to sell your needs to corporations only concerned with the bottom-line - esp. w/healthcare? Are you ready to let these corrupt congressmen put your health in the hands of whoever contributes the most to their campaign? Where are the Democrats to speak to this? Where are the people willing to demagogue this issue like the Republicans are. Tax & Spend Democrats? Meet the Cheat & Mislead Republicans. (With the added benefit that any distortion you can go, "oh there go those republicans, misleading again....") You better watch out - they're SOFT ON CRIME.' WHITE COLLAR CRIME. WHICH IS MORE LIKELY TO HIT YOU IN THE POCKETBOOK THAN A STREET MUGGING. Then run a litany of the costs up the screen... Enron Pensions lost... Cali Energy Crisis costs... Costs of Worldcom bankruptcy... etc.
Posted by CRS1 at January 23, 2006 01:14 AMHow do we win in 2006? I suggest we start with the failed "Contract with America". The first proposal for legislation listed in the contract was "The Fiscal Responsibility Act". This was to be "An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget". Instead we got more "trickle-down" and tax cuts for the rich, an expensive war, more corporate welfare, and early tax refund checks packaged as tax relief. Don't forget the surpluses-cum-deficits in epic fashion.
"Fiscal Responsibility" passed the House in 1995, but failed in the Senate 65-35, meaning several Republican Senators had no intention of bringing such oversight to their legislative body. Now we have a huge deficit by any standard and more "promises" to "fix" the problems.
Another good one, a promise in the "Contract" to "select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse." And now we have a $320 million bridge to nowhere, Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, and lies that brought us to war.
Heck, even better is the following "promise"..."require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress". That's all good, but it should go without saying. Apparently this doesn't really apply when a powerful Congressman wants to use the FAA to track a flight for political purposes, giving FAA employess the impression they are responding to a congressional inquiry. This misuse of taxpayer resources should have resulted in swift action against Delay...which turned out to be nothing more than a rebuke.
And how about some things that aren't in the contract, but should be? How about a promise to protect the freedoms and the privacy of American citizens? Maybe even a promise to prevent the tyranny of the powerful over the powerless, whether the tyranny comes from a corporation or an agent of the government?
Conservatives paid homage to the "Contract with America" to the extent that it got them into power. Since that power has been solidified, they dropped the "Contract" and we have deliberative bodies embroiled in corruption scandals, who actively stifle the voices of the minority, and insert themselves in matters of family where they see political gain (Schiavo, but not for a baby in Texas where a law Bush signed allowed life support to be shut off against the family's wishes).
There have also been assaults against the checks and balances guaranteed by The Constitution. Members of the Legislative and Executive Branches have assailed the Judicial Branch for "legislating" from the bench. The Judicial Branch is charged with applying existing law AND evaluating laws according to their constitutionality.
To be fair, the "Contract with America" was really a promise to "try" to accomplish the goals outlined therein. Somewhere along the line, they stopped trying and went back to business as usual.
Conservatives have had over 10 years to create change. America gave them a chance. Not only did they fail, they took us in the wrong direction. It's time to let Congress know they represent the will of the people, not the will of free-spending lobbyists or fringe Christian groups.
Fred
Posted by Fred Garvin at January 23, 2006 08:46 PM