Steve has a point in that the Democratic pols. old enough to have worked their way up to the Senate remember the Reagan dominated 1980's well. The old slickster sold his snake oil so well that the young Dems. who managed to survive and gain high office are generally an unusually cautious group. This helped them survive the peak years of the Nixon-Reagan coalition but does not position them well by temperament to go on the offessive now that America's demographics are more favorable to the Democrats.
Keep in mind that most younger post 1980's Dems. are more aggressive and so it is up to us bloggers and activists to lead the charge for now. With a good election cycle this year, including electing some of the Iraq war veterans who can critisize the flawed GOP plan for endless war effectivily from their own experences without getting "swift boated" a more aggressive leadership will come, just give it time. My advice to those who have cautious Democratic senators is to be patient as long as their overall voting record is good (not Lieberman like) and work to get younger, more aggressive post Reagan Dems. elected when possible.
We've been playing defense scince the 1980's. With Bush and crew fumbiling anf bumbiling so badly time to "run the ball" is coming.
Dang, Steve! Here we've got this big head of steam built up and y'all have to go ahead and ruin by citing *ugh* facts and *rasmfrasm* practicality and all that stuff!
Posted by Rich at May 24, 2006 11:21 AMWell said, Steve.
Posted by Christopher at May 24, 2006 11:27 AMNo guts no glory? The question is why is the Bush bunch being so public about something that is traditionally very private, "ultra" secret even? The obvious answer is that it's a trap, counter intellegence where a turncoat is used to supply false , misleading info. The one thing accompolished liars like Bush and his are really good at is lying. So when they tell an obvious truth, confess even then look out. Most likely a trap of some kind. My best guess as to what they are up to is simply changing the subject from Iraq to anything.
Posted by Bill at May 24, 2006 11:47 AMIt still hurts horribly and leaves me down, very down.
Hayden is a felon, of that there is no doubt. He loathes the Constitution. Playing safe? Try playing loser. They can easliy end up losing for this, I just don't see how this plays safe.
Democrats will win when they fight and not before. I don't agree that they can win by default, not with the journalism corps we have.
Posted by paradox at May 24, 2006 11:56 AMSpot-on, Steve. The problem with the Democrats' "long game" strategic thinking is that the "long game" is made up of a series of "short games" - and the fear of losing any of those is preventing us from winning any of them ("Let's not argue about Iraq" "Let's not fight Roberts" "Let's not fight Miers" "Let's not fight Alito" "Let's not call Bush a liar" "Let's not filibuster any judges" "Let's not support the rape/incest exception to choice rights in South Dakota" "Let's not stand up for the Constitution" "Let's not challenge Gonzales/Hayden/Bush/Cheney about warrantless wiretapping/NSA scandals"), and not only are we not winning any of these short games we're forfeiting, but we're also not making any progress in the "long game."
And to think voters don't know what the Democratic party stands for, and think it's afraid to fight?
I wonder where they could have ever come up with that idea.
Posted by Chris at May 24, 2006 11:57 AMActually, I did skip one important point (and quibble): If Schumer and Reid can get the Senate Democrats to 51 (or more), you will *NOT* see them have "more courage and less risk-aversion" - they'll be scared shitless that they'll lose their most conservative members on votes, if not to the GOP (though after Lieberman and Ben Nelson, I'm not sure if there are any candidates to actually *switch*). Because *now* they would have something to lose - and they've been acting like they've got something to lose for six years now, even when they didn't, and even when they weren't going to. It's just how they think, and it needs to be drummed out of them.
I mean, I'd love to see the Senate Dems win and grow a pair of balls, but they - and you - have the causality *backwards*. If they didn't have balls before they won, they're sure as hell not going to acquire them after they do. Tell me you've seen signs to indicate otherwise. If they can't, won't, and don't run a campaign rooted in their own self-confidence and authority and opposition to the President, I don't see what's going to make them change course, and I don't see how they're going to make the necessary changes to their political and media strategies.
Posted by Chris at May 24, 2006 12:04 PMWell said, Steve. Chris and Paradox as well.
The Democrats can only get so far on being not-Bush. They've got to stand up and give people an affirmative reason to support them, rather than relying on people having reasons not to support the GOP. I'm optimistic that they'll still get the message before November. Already it seems the Dems have learned one important message, which is marginalizing the extreme wings of the party. This is something the GOP learned some time ago (which is why they went from having a Christian fundamentalist address the national convention in the 80s to not even giving those guys a seat at the table in 2000/2004). The GOP is, of course, largely in the pocket of the religious right, but they've effectively marginalized that element of the party as far as the public face of the party is concerned.
The Democrats have finally started doing the same thing. Over the last year, we've had Democrats speaking out when Howard Dean says something over the top. And has Michael Moore continued to have a prominent face in Democrat politics? No. And I don't expect you'll see him in the front row of the convention in '08. The Democrats have learned, I think, that the important segment of the population in terms of winning election doesn't care for extremists on either side. Let's face it, both parties are going to get most of the vote from their base - the trick is to get the people who could go either direction. These people tend not to like right-wing religious conservatives, and also tend not to like the far left of the Democratic party.
So bravo, if you ask me. The Democrats have licked one of the two biggest problems they have. I've been saying this since 2000 - what they needed to do was 1) marginalize the extreme wing of the party; and 2) hit the public with a positive, affirmative message that gives them a reason to vote for them.
One down, one to go.
Posted by Musmanno at May 24, 2006 12:06 PMSteve's comments are too the point, as are Chris'. If the Dems get a majority, a big if in my book, they likely will continue to actually care what people think, and therefore govern as non-risk takers, i.e. wimps who try to please everyone. The key to the GOP's governance is that they don't care who they hurt as long as Big Money wins. Dems want to "feel our pain" - the GOPers want to cause it. The Dems want to include everyone, the GOPers want white men only.
Posted by T2 at May 24, 2006 12:20 PMChris, well said.
Posted by John B. at May 24, 2006 12:49 PMI agree with T2, and not just for back-scratching purposes - Democrats have become unduly concerned with what everyone thinks, not just their own voters, not even just the necessary moderates, but their actual opponents. Democrats can't let Republicans tell them what to do, what to say, or how to say it - and they *ESPECIALLY* cannot let Republicans tell them how to fight, or on what topics. It's a great and mystifying failing of the 21st-century Democratic party that it actually gives a shit about what Republicans say/do about it, and while there's a certain value in managing your message so that it's not caricatured to your detriment (Musmanno's fear, if he's arguing for Democrats to succeed), there is a stark distinction between letting your opponents control your message, and knowing how it will play in your party and to those whom you hope to persuade, and being ready to defend it. It doesn't matter what the Democrats' message is if they're not willing to make it and defend themselves.
Democrats can craft what they think should be an unassaible message (the way they thought they had a nominee who was bulletproof on national security/terrorism issues), but they need to realize that Republicans are not making rational arguments against the message, but attacking them *because* Democrats are Democrats and campaigning. Unfortunately, Democrats compound their stupidity by (1) failing to realize the real source of Republican opposition, that Democrats *ARE* *DEMOCRATS* (the GOP understands oppositional politics, why the fuck don't Democrats?), (2) thinking they can find the perfect message or candidate (Me-too-ism on war; a veteran who's "electable" as a candidate) and thinking that enables them to avoid having to fight to prove themselves, and (3) then, when challenged, deciding that they had the wrong message or the wrong candidate, instead of the wrong fucking reaction and attitude, because now they've got to send an automatically inferior message (the problem with pure meritocracy) or an automatically inferior candidate (if he was best, he would've been out first, right), and they admit that the current message/candidate wasn't their second choice, when what they *NEED* to do is actually fight this time, and they're already half-convinced they're going to lose, again.
And then on top of that, Republicans present themselves as the winners, against a second-tier, insubordinate, rebellious, unconfident representative from a party that not only is insecure about its policies and politicians, but has learned all the wrong lessons, and are intent on trying even harder to play into the Republican game plan.
God, no wonder we've lost some elections lately.
stv, thnk y knw tht Hydn s gng whr lttl Bsh dsrs, wth th blssngs f th Hll 'fft. Tht ln shld tll ll whch drctn th wnd blws.
Bxr s whr, sh'll vt crp plcy lngsd vryn ls. Jst s whrmngr Gr nd bt vryn ls t thr. Ths lttl pnks wll dnc th crp tn bcs tht s th nly msc t thr rs. Th dcl dlts cn't vn fgr hw t kp Rv t stnd lng ngh t lck n.
Whr's ths thrd prty tht Grnspn crtd? sspct tht th dms wll plc thrd, f ths nw prty vr vlvs frm th crp slm, r plc scnd wtht ths nw crprtn pltcl cnstrct.
N, lttl Bsh hs hd, nd wll cntn t hv, vry sngl thng g hs wy. Thr s n stppng ths crp bys. Tmrrw, rn nd Syr, nxt wk Sml, crp, w'll ll myb d lng bfr ths gngstrs lrn th rrr f thr wys.
D y wnt lttl rlgn? Wll, dn't nswr tht yt, s knw yr nswr.
Hr's wht s bzrr: ll f s n th cntry, whn Bsh s ll dn, wll lv th lttl bstrd. Wll, myb nt m.
[Editor: ignore=off]T2s post is on target with the exception of the last sentence (it is evident to any person that the GOP consists of quite a few non-white men and that they're actively courting non-white men, so such comments are counterproductive). I also agree with Chris, in that the Democrats need to quit letting the GOP chose the field and set the rules, then try to beat them. They need to figure who they are as a party, whether the GOP want to go there or not, and communicate that information to the populace.
Posted by Musmanno at May 24, 2006 12:54 PMFeinstein is my senator, and I know she was bombarded with phone calls pleading with her to vote against Hayden. She no longer cares or listens to her constituents.
I'm voting for Coleen Fernald.
Boxer is a whore,
(Sentence deleted by host)
Unfortunately, Democrats compound their stupidity by (1) failing to realize the real source of Republican opposition, that Democrats *ARE* *DEMOCRATS* (the GOP understands oppositional politics, why the fuck don't Democrats?)
Exactly. So someone tell me again why we should bother fighting for these whiners?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 24, 2006 01:49 PMGood post and comments. I have long given up hope of any meaningful coherent group spine transfusion for Dems. The good ole boys and (girls) club known as Congress is just happy with the status quo. It is apparent to me they are all perfectly fine living in their Insiders Beltway Bubble with all the perks and cocktail parties of the ruling class elites. They mock everyday
Americans and certainly have no idea what real Amurkans deal with on a daily basis. Plus most problematic they still get their paychecks no matter how many successes, failures, or indictments they have under their belt...and gerrymandering certainly has played a factor in that as well.
As long as their is no meaningful lobbying and campaign finance reform with clean and fair elections I don't see anything changing. The Corpolobbycongressional ruling class elites on both sides of the aisle have set the system up to keep it that way. It will take a major revolt of all Americans to throw the bums all out.
And I am with coyote, Why should I bother fighting or contributing to the party of enabling losers, who disdainfully look down upon average americans like myself with their votes (as Chris noted above) every day.
yes, Musmanno, the attempts by the GOP in drawing little brown men into their fold has been a huge success - don't know what caused me to overlook it. Ditto for the rush of African-Americans to register GOP. And now, with the forward-looking immigration policies the GOP House is cooking up, Latinos should flock to the GOP. Look for this flood of minorities to key a GOP sweep in the fall.
Posted by T2 at May 24, 2006 02:08 PMDems seem to have decided to starve their progressives into despair. Don't see how that's going to work for them long term or short term.
The idea that those Dems who just lavishly praised Hayden for CIA are going to become scary junk-yard oversight dogs eager to take on Nero Jr is becoming a bit too preposterous for me to believe anymore.
The Capital & Crucifix party consciously feeds its base, while the Dems lock their most energetic passionate supporters in the basement, on bread and water, then wonder why there is attrition to Green and other progressive proto-parties.
We may have seen the high water mark of left wing "co-operation" with the Kerry campaign. The 2006 election, as important as it should be, may just fizzle, with the activist wings of both parties unimpressed with their parties' campaigns and hence unmotivated.
"Risk averse" politicians---like you can obtain effective political power by investing your "capital" at 2.4% compounded annually. It's a game for risk takers, it seems to me.
I guess Dems think things are just going to keep getting more and more desperate for the country the longer we are under "conservative" rule, and that "their time will come".
But when the economic castastrophe that Nero has recklessly sowed hits, exacerbated by an energy crisis that can't be managed in any way, the old political system everyone has relied on for the last 60 or so years may not be around to give Dems the "victory" they are currently "investing" for.
Posted by euzoius at May 24, 2006 03:00 PMpst dltd by hst
[Editor: ignore=off](remark deleted by host) ... "Such trash talk and character assassination is simply beneath politics, and belongs at the curb."
Look in the mirror, dude, and clean it up please.
Posted by Sharon at May 24, 2006 03:24 PMYou're absolutely right Steve. The Dems were gutless and cautious when Bush was riding high, and they are gutless and cautious now that he's down to 29%. But the commenter above has it right that if the Dems take the Senate this year, they'll continue to be gutless and cautious for fear of losing the majority in 2008.
The problem, of course, is that by being gutless and cautious, they may just fuck around long enough to keep getting Republicans elected because they won't be giving voters a principled, courageous, visionary alternative. To paraphase that famous Truman quote: If you give the voters a choice between and Republican and a Republican, they'll vote for a Republican every time.
I don't know what it must have been like when the Whig Party died out, but I think we're seeing how it happened.
Posted by Phil from New York at May 24, 2006 03:31 PMI will say this once only, and this message is to all of you: stop the pathetic language, and do it now.
Am I clear on this?
Posted by Steve Soto at May 24, 2006 03:32 PMAs you wish, Steve. I was talking about Deadwood with someone today and that line was one of the more hilarious ones from the show. My apologies.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 24, 2006 04:53 PMSteve, delete my comment please (2 above this). I hate that word!
Posted by Sharon at May 24, 2006 04:53 PMT2:
I didn't say they were successful, I said they WANT them. You said they didn't WANT them. There is a difference between what one wants and what one gets.
Posted by Musmanno at May 24, 2006 06:03 PMNSA investigation isn't going anyplace anyway.
By-the-way, did you hear that the communications companies who are under contract with the Government do not have to report the amount of the financial gain for said work? Not to their stockholders, and not to the American people as a public utility company. The price of spying must be very lucrative.
srry, stv, gvn ll th vlbl wrk y d, y hv n tm t wst n bckrng.
[Editor: ignore=off]Hey it's not like a SCOTUS appointment!
Wait a minute, I guess they didn't put up much of a fight on that front either.
Posted by Right Fools at May 24, 2006 08:13 PM"They were bitch-slapped repeatedly since 2002 for being weak on national security, and are now focused on doing whatever is necessary to pick up more seats this November and aren’t willing to expose their flanks."
They have to take responsibility for being "bitch-slapped" since 2002. You allow yourself to be bitched-slapped.
Posted by Judith at May 25, 2006 04:07 AMMaybe we don't need a third party, but maybe it is time for an independent to run? Remember Ross? I am convinced that had he not withdrawn (due to probable threats) he would have won. He at least could put a fire under people.
Posted by Judith at May 25, 2006 04:49 AM
That line of Steve's (which Judith quotes at 4:07 AM), describing the Democratic reaction to being bitch-slapped for being weak on national security, has two problems (well, Dems have two problems; the problem is with them, not with Steve's formulation, but that reveals it starkly):
1. If you're being bitch-slapped, you aren't strong on *shit* - *especially* *NATIONAL* *SECURITY*. Period.
2. "[Democrats are focusing] on doing whatever is necessary to pick up more seats this November" - and - "aren't willing to expose their flanks" are two phrases that cannot go together. The phrases are not logically and automatically mutually exclusive, but in today's politics, for these Democrats, I'm reminded of Meat Loaf's song, "I will do anything for love, but I won't do that." I don't know/remember what "that" was, but it undercuts the "I will do anything" part of the sentence as neatly as a guillotine. "We'll do whatever it takes to win! But we won't do that!"
So, you're not really willing to do whatever it takes to win - but you say so? Are you trying to fool us, or fool each other, or fool yourselves? Because you're not fooling your opponents.
Posted by Chris at May 25, 2006 05:57 AMIf Americans voted their conscience, the Feinsteins and Schumers wouldn't get away with playing "the long game"....our legislators would do what was right at the time when they were required to do the right thing. We can all see that the Democrats are waiting around to see which way the political wind is blowing rather than doing what is necessary to defend the People's constitutional protections as they are charged with the responsibility to do. Combine that with the bold audacity of the power-usurping Executive, and that is precisely how we lose our liberty. Piece by piece, bit by bit.
May I recommend Voters For Peace? Their slogan is "This time vote for what you believe in." We need to remind American voters to vote their conscience.
I wrote this related post.
Posted by Iddybud at May 25, 2006 07:30 AMFrom #1: '...Iraq war veterans who can critisize the flawed GOP plan for endless war effectivily from their own experences without getting "swift boated"..."
Just to clarify--not criticize--but the vets WILL be swift-boated. HOPEFULLY, the difference will be that they'll FIGHT BACK, which IMHO gets back to the major theme of this thread. Joe Sixpack (and even his wife) doesn't think Dems stand for much because they're not willing to FIGHT for much.
(And that's why I'm for Wes Clark as my first choice in 2008, but will gladly support Hillary. For all her 'triangulation', when it comes down to it, I think(!) she'll fight. FWIW, Feingold's stock is rising for me, too. Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Lieberman? Dead to me.)
Posted by bartcopfan at May 25, 2006 08:29 AMWhat do you think of this approach?
Take a Stand by Signing the Voters Pledge.
www.votersforpeace.us
This time vote for what you believe in.
The Voters Pledge creates a powerful political force that politicians cannot continue to ignore. It sends a clear message to the war parties to end the occupation of Iraq and to end unprovoked attacks on other nations.
Sign the Voters Pledge and ask at least 10 of your friends to sign as well. Our goal is to sign up 2 million voters by November, 2006.
"I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."
Pat Elder
www.votersforpeace.us