I think it's ridiculous that the Democrats are considering not running hard in the fall. To say that somehow they're better off letting the Republicans have control for two more years means that they continue to be the party of ineffectuality for two more years. They would continue to be the party of inconsequence for two more years.
It benefits the Democrats nothing by remaining in the shadows. They're already perceived as not having balls, sitting out this election would only further that notion.
Posted by Maurice Reeves at May 31, 2006 10:25 AMThe very fact that the Democrats are debating whether to fight or not is clear proof that the party is bankrupt. The party has not fought for anything in a long time and just sits as a flag waving in the wind, a flag without spine or direction. When one reviews the votes in the Senate and in the House, fewer than five Dems show any spine or leadership. Unfortunately, the GOP is even more bankrupt.
It will take time and pain for a leader to emerge somewhere who has rememberance of what America is supposed to be, a land of independence, liberty, and responsibility. No such leader is now in view.
If the Dems are afraid to fight, why should anyone ever work for them in any election? Its just throwing the pearls of one's efforts to swine.
Hopefully, some Dem will come forward from the wilderness who has vision and will. It better be soon or it will be too late.
Posted by Nobody at May 31, 2006 10:26 AMYou can't win by losing. This type of reasoning in 1930 would have encouraged the Democrats to throw the house election that year. That would have costed them the chance to hold committee hearings and refine the policies that became the core of the new deal. And there is another current problem that must be addressed for it threatens American democracy.
Control of at least one house of congress would give the Democrats the power to conduct full investigations into all of the various abuses that have gone on scince 2001. Everything needs to be brought out into the open. Scince the watergate scandal ended with the criminals mostly getting off with little or no punishment they've gotten more brazen everytime they've had a chance. And those chances include Iran-contra as well as the legion of scandals the MSM has relutantly been obliged to mention in the last fove years. Congressional investigations could not be skimmed over the way in the manner as is currently done. If America does not learn to punish political criminals soon, advances in technology may make it impossible to punish them later.
Bush will still be president for two more years. The problems that will have to be faced are coming regardless of who controls congress. The main difference is that with Democrats in positions of congressional leadership can get on the sunday talk shows and place blame where it really belongs. At the very worst, one house in Democratic hands means that the Democrats will be able to control debate in that chamber and the ability to stop bad bills from being passed. If the GOP keeps control of congress, then at least some bad bills will be passed that could have been blocked otherwise.
Running against the Bush years is going to be available for the Democrats in 2008 regardless of who controls congress for the next two years. What wont be available in the next two years is the sense of momentium that can be built by taking control of at least part of the government this year.
pss, 'll tll y, th bttm ln s tht w d nt knw th ftr; ys, w pln fr th ftr, bt w r nt Gd. Ths, lwys rg tht w mst lwys d th rght thng, fr, t d nthng, my smply trn t tht w ndd p dng th wrng thng.
Frthr, th bty f th DC Hll f 'fft s wtchng th fml psych prt. t's xctly lk wtchng wf wh s mr cncrnd bt shs, clthng, mk-p, gmmcks n ts, thn th $15,000 f ntrst tht flws nt th crp ccnt ch yr.
Wtht dbt, ths whrs nd whrmngrs n th Hll st thr dy rnd wh thy'r gng t lnch wth nd wht thy'r gng t wr. Thy smply lt th trtr bhvr nd thr crsdr crp ly n th tbl, tht tbl wtht fd.
r crp lrds jst lv s.
[Editor: ignore=off]You can't win by losing.
But you can lose by winning.
I think the Dems should run as hard as they can in November. No question. Put the best candidates forward. Spend the money. But I certainly can't blame anyone who's thinking in the back of their head that it might not be such a great thing to take a seat in the front row come November only to realize you've set yourself down in a huge pile of Bushshit left on your seat, the smell of which is going to cling to you no matter how many times you try to wash it out.
scout, could you please cool it about the "female psyche"? If you want to blame your mama and your wife for all your problems, fine, but don't put the horrors of the world on all females. Last I checked, men were in charge of pretty much everything. And fucking things up pretty good too I might add.
Posted by at May 31, 2006 10:58 AMThat was me to scout.
Posted by Sharon at May 31, 2006 11:00 AMExtremely disappointing to see this kind of talk. This country needs fresh new leadership NOW and if the Democrats are scared to do that then why are they even still around?
Posted by Marcus at May 31, 2006 11:03 AMThe Bush Administration has ruined many, many things in and about this country and it will take many, many years to put it right. The Dems will struggle to do it, and so will whichever sucker inherits the mess if it's GOP. The difference is that if the GOP remains in majority, they'll always blame the Dems - even if the Senate was 99-1 GOP control. The Dems, on the other hand, will blame both the GOP and themselves (and they'll be right on both counts). The United States has suffered dearly because of Bush and the CheneyCons (and will continue to do so for two years). No matter which party wins, it will be a big mess for a long, difficult time. It may be a mess from now on. Maybe that will be the Bush Legacy - permanent mess so deep it can't be climbed out of.
Posted by T2 at May 31, 2006 11:09 AMah yes, the Shrum Strategy for Victory through Defeat. feh.
Posted by benjoya at May 31, 2006 11:09 AMThe fundamental DC unseriousness. Issues like blame and positioning mean something to them. Wars, the constitution, the budget - that's all just so much noise. To even begin to think that it would be better to have another couple of thousand US soldiers and tens of thousands of iraqis die for nothing so that the Republicans will not escape blame for their criminal policies is just as immoral as the original republican policies
Isn't this more of the absurd "risk averse" political strategy Steve has been detailing lately? These Democratic consultants are too "strategic" for the party's good.
First we hear Dems can't get any media attention and exposure because they aren't "in charge" of anything, and have no power.
Now we hear there's concern about being in charge of something (and having aome power) because it might adversely affect our presidential "chances" in 2008. Isn't a bird in the hand still worth two in the bush?
Good Christ, what kind of "leaders" are they? Don't you have more actual control over your destiny as a political party if you have SOME base of power in the government, even if there's a "risk" of failure involved?
thank god gephardt's gone. more than any other dem, this is his war, too.
and right on, citizen k
Posted by benjoya at May 31, 2006 11:22 AMWhere do I go to get a new party. One that stands up and fights, one whose motto is not "Run Away!! Run Away!!"?
Posted by Mister Go at May 31, 2006 11:29 AMWell it doesn't much matter. Whatever you do half the people are going to blame you anyway.
Also, it's a little harder to avoid playing the resposibility game in the modern hyper-media environment than it used to be. There are vast networks at work with no other objective than to ingrain in the general populus 24/7 that its the other guys fault.
Posted by snark at May 31, 2006 11:35 AMhy, shrn, bfr frgt, wnt t mntn tht whvr pntd y nt spch thrpy s n trgt. vd th clssrm, s th clssrm rflcts whtvr s lft f r mdrn fmly, bt vn wrs.
Pls rtcht pwrds yr lvl f bstrctn rgrdng th fml pscyh nvlvng thrty rls. Nn f ths hs t d wth htrd f lds, tc. Bt t hs t d wth chn f cmmnd. 'll tch mr pn ths tpc dwn th rd, s, fr whtvr rsn, th hrt s hvy wth th cntnng pltcl vnts nfldng s n c.
Pls dn't tk nythng sy prsnlly.
[Editor: ignore=off]You can't win by losing.
But you can lose by winning.
Comment by Snark.
Suppose Kerry had actually won the election. Can you imagine the hysterical shrieking from the likes of the Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's because Kerry is losing the war that Bush and Rummy were winning it when he took over? Never mind the sordid mess on the border, the huge national debt, the Katrina aftermath, or the corruption issues in Congress.
The Christian Right always say that God works in mysterious ways. And I'm starting to think He is a democrat.
Posted by Hank at May 31, 2006 11:41 AMThe Greens are making a serious push to recruit candidates to run against these idiots. It might be too late for the 2006 election season, but by 2008 maybe enough folks will have had enough of both parties that they get some serious traction. I'm certainly plenty ready for real change instead of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Posted by Monica at May 31, 2006 12:00 PMBut it has to do with chain of command.
Please, we've heard it all before, no need to elaborate further. We understand that you have adopted the human construct of "chain of command" to justify making women subservient to men. We're still not nuying.
Posted by at May 31, 2006 12:02 PMUm, that would be:
We're still not buying.
Posted by ann at May 31, 2006 12:03 PMWasn't this just in the NY Times a few days ago? The format and the points raised, even the phrasing are nearly identical. Jesus, can't these guys take up a useful hobby like golf or Formula 1 Racing? They really think that after 6 years of Republican dominance, next year people will only remember that Democrats controlled the House and/or Senate? Idiots.
Is Bruce Bartlett seriously telling the world he's not interested in why 3,000 or so of our military personel lost their lives, ostensibly to avenge the deaths of another 3,000 civilian deaths here in NY? All on the basis of criminal lying.
Now I don't know who lives in a bigger bubble, Bruce Bartlett or Bush.
The small talk by a few dems means nothing.
The democrats will win big in November and we as a country will begin the long process of repairing our country from the bushit years.
For our next leader what we need is someone who is not a democrat or republican, green, red, or blue. We need an American who has a heart of gold and the will to stand up and do what is right knowing that a massive majority of his fellow American citizens are standing at his side.
If and when we are willing to stand with such a man, he will come forward.
The ability to do this is what makes our country great and this is the only way to bring America back to her greatness.
This is insane. This is beyond zero-sum politial throw-the-blame-on-the-other-guy manuvering. We need different leadership in the Congress ASAP. Another 2 years of this insanity of GOP dominance is going to kill us one way or another.
If the Democratic Party isn't going to step up, it's time they get the fuck off the field. Greens, Blues, The Light Socialism Party, The Indpeendence Party - I'll go for any team that gets it together, runs candidates and wins seats promising reform and restraint on the Executive.
This also supposes that we still have ballots and ballot machines that we can trust.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 31, 2006 12:51 PMI take these reports with a few pounds of salt. Before I tear my hair out and curse the day Nancy Pelosi was born, I thought I'd check out the authors of these reports. Bruce Bartlett claims a few of his favorite bloggers are first, Andy Sullivan, followed by Mickey Kaus, RealClearPolitics (whatever that is) and not to forget, Drudge.
I suspect this is more of the same DLC bullshit being spewed as if it is connected to reality is some bizarro way. Let's not have conniptions because some questionable "pundits" regurgitate their Beltway cocktail weenies as if they were polished gems.
We all have plenty of work to do propping up noodly spines. Stories like these, which MAY have some germs of truth, are probably intended to dishearten us.
Forget these insider maunderings. Give them all the respect they're due. Perhaps you can wrap some tasty mullets in them, or store them in the outhouse in case of emergency.
Posted by DeminNewJ at May 31, 2006 12:52 PMThe greens are too socialist to make much headway in this country. Read their platform - "aggressive" redistribution of wealth; elimination of many property rights (including artistic rights, treating artistic works as community property and not a commodity);
other ideas that are either too socialist or simply too unpopular (or bad ideas) environmental crime units for district attorneys; elimination of all religious indication from public forums (i.e. money, govt buildings, websites, other property - this will prove terribly unpopular); increased push to stifle free speech by passing draconian hate crime legislation; full, lifetime, universal health care; permanent border passes to citizens of mexico and canada whose identities can be verified; phasing out fossil fuels, but prohibition against nuclear energy; employer subsidied of public transportation for employees; a moratorium on widening highways (regardless of how much traffic they are getting, apparently); susbtantial gas tax increases (this will kill them in this day and age); elimination of free parking in non-residential areas; universal basic income (whether a person is employed or not); increasingly progressive taxation; designation of many resources as "commons" (they should look at the tragedy of the commons - human cost/benefit behavior in a commons environment); etc.
There are many more. The Greens aren't going anywhere in this country for a long, long time (if ever).
Posted by Musmanno at May 31, 2006 12:57 PMMusmanno - who said the Greens?
And getting the flutters when reading their 10 key points just makes you look silly. I'll bet you many of those ideas sound pretty good to the gang on this fora.
Get outta here ya troll.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 31, 2006 01:13 PMI, too, am sick to death of the positioning and posturing. We need leadership, and America needs to get back on track. It truly would be treason for the Democrats to put theoretical positioning strategy ahead of getting the team together that can start addressing some of our problems.
Posted by Vicki at May 31, 2006 01:21 PMMonica mentioned the Greens; read the thread.
The points are taken directly from their party platform, which I happen to have a copy of since a good friend of mine is active in the party locally.
Whether the ideas sound good to those on this forum or not is immaterial in terms of how successful the Greens might be nationally (again see Monica's post, which you must have missed), the question is whether their ideas are viable. At this point, they aren't, and aren't likely to be for some time.
Is throwing the word 'troll' around the best you can do? That's too bad.
Posted by Musmanno at May 31, 2006 01:22 PMVicki:
The problem is that entrenched political power tends to think in terms of politics and strategy first. There is an insular view among politicians that tend to put them out of touch with their constituents. The Democrats needs to push hard, and if they do they might be able to take the Congress. But there is a real possibility that they'll remain content to sort of sit on the sidelines and let the current administration dig a deeper grave. From a strategic standpoint, with an eye to 2008 and beyond, maybe there's something to that. But I think our leaders owe us more than that, and we ought to demand it.
Posted by Musmanno at May 31, 2006 01:25 PMCowards! There will never be a good time. If the Republicans control congress for another two years then Bush will have another 2 years to wreck havoc in American, Iraq and who know where else.
Posted by Evan at May 31, 2006 01:59 PMI have been and continue to have Green ties, Musmanno.
Whether the ideas sound good to those on this forum or not is immaterial in terms of how successful the Greens might be nationally, the question is whether their ideas are viable. At this point, they aren't, and aren't likely to be for some time.
C'mon conselor, prove your case, don't just swagger on in here and throw around bland statements of rebuttal.
Is throwing the word 'troll' around the best you can do? That's too bad.
That's called the amount of effort you're worth you, centerist piece of trash. Especially when you damn well knew you were seeing what you could provoke.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 31, 2006 02:35 PMNobody is going to get much Green of anything without some serious campaign finance reform. Money = speech is the reason we have the current cretin/celebrity spokesperson in office and the reason in my opinion why this disgusting mess of an occupation and civil war is going on. Until we have publicly financed elections we'll always have some variation on the Golden Rule,i.e., whoever has the gold makes the rules.
Posted by jondee at May 31, 2006 03:07 PMTwo years of gridlock would be a vast improvement over what we have now. There will be no "good" time to run this government after Bush. Stopping futher damage in the next two years is what gridlock can give us. The damage needs to be stopped first, and that will make recovery after 2008 more possible.
There is no advantege in refusing to deal with the problems that have to be dealt with.
"I think it's ridiculous that the Democrats are considering not running hard in the fall. To say that somehow they're better off letting the Republicans have control for two more years means that they continue to be the party of ineffectuality for two more years."
Maurice is right. This is like the filibuster issue. What in the hell are they waiting for, the perfect moment? We keep waiting for them to fight back, and they have not. This is getting to be beyond ridiculous. Either the Democrats stand up and fight, or they are cowards. They think they would be better off to sit and wait? Well, what about the American people? Will they be better off? What the hell has happened to our moral clarity and our will to fight against these fascists? If they don't fight now and in 2008, then just when will they fight? The answer is NEVER. No more chances from this Liberal.
Posted by Judith at May 31, 2006 06:36 PM
"I always argue that we must always do the right thing, for, to do nothing, may simply turn out that we ended up doing the wrong thing."
Scout, I agree. Or, we should always try to do the right thing. In doing so, we have no regrets.
"it might not be such a great thing to take a seat in the front row come November only to realize you've set yourself down in a huge pile of Bushshit left on your seat, the smell of which is going to cling to you no matter how many times you try to wash it out."
Snark, and is 2008 going to be any different? Why don't they just wait until 2016? Maybe things will be better then.
Judith,
You'll note that I prefaced my remarks with the opinion that the Dems should do everything in their power to regain control in November.
That being said, the country is not going to implode because of a few more years of Rep. mismanagement. And, like it or not the otherside is going to play the blame game and the pathetic excuse for a media that we have in this country is going to play right along. Nothing is going to change that between now and November 2006 or 2008. If the Dems regain control of Congress in November they will have a slim majority at best. Bush will still have his veto and the Dems will never muster a veto-proof majority. What that means is two years of gridlock. Nothing changes. And its two years of the Reps. being able to crow about obstructionist Dems. Then in 2008 if the Dems retake the WHite House the Reps. have a two year track record of nothing being done in Congress to lay on the Dems at the beginning of the new administration.
I'm not saying its right. Or that its the worst scenerio. Just that it is something that, in our present hyper-partisan environment, can be legitimately considered.
If the Dems can make some gains in 2006 great. But two more years of Bush butchery, which is inevitable anyway, followed by a clean sweep of Congress and the White House in 2008 by the Dems might not be so bad either.
Posted by snark at May 31, 2006 07:47 PMWhat that means is two years of gridlock. Nothing changes. And its two years of the Reps. being able to crow about obstructionist Dems. Then in 2008 if the Dems retake the WHite House the Reps. have a two year track record of nothing being done in Congress to lay on the Dems at the beginning of the new administration.
So? If the Dems. take congress in '06 and the presidentcy in '08, they're strill going to control congress. An electorate that votes anti-Bush in the '06 congressional elections is not going to turn around and give the GOP a majority in congress in '08 while electing a Democrat president. Let the GOP minority try to be obstructionist after '08. The way things are going, they're likely to be facing about a 30 seat gap in 2009. If about 20 or so GOP seats, enough to change control of the house, fall this year then 2008 can complete the realignment by taking others seats that had once been solid for the GOP but which became competitive in '06 before turning blue in '08.
Idiosynchronic:
Well now I know who the forum name-caller is. I'll give your comments the appropriate weight.
Herbal tee:
I agree with you. Furthermore, politics is unpredictable. The Democrats need to make a strong, hard run at the Congress right now and try to take control in the mid-term elections. If they get control, they're not likely to lose it in 2008. On the other hand, if they don't try, thinking they'll let the GOP continue to screw things up for another couple of years then go for broke in 2008, they run the risk of a two-year period in which something unexpected could happen to hurt their chances. The American public isn't always the most reasonable or rational group. It's hard to conceive of how favor could swing back toward the GOP if the Dems sit on their hands now, but I think politics shows that crazier things have happened. They need to act now and then sustain that momentum right through into 2008.
Posted by Musmanno at June 1, 2006 08:42 AMDemocrats have to beat 2 parties. Repubs and the DLC. I remember in one of the too many dem. primary debates. John Edwards and John Kerry and Al Shartpton jumped Dean for saying we need the red neck pick up truck vote. They were much more respectful to repubs. Donna Brazille and James Carville, instead of screaming bloody murder after the '04 vote theft, said dems. need to be more christian. We do have a third party.It's called the DLC. They aren't bright. They think Hillary Clinton will be Prez.
Posted by molly at June 1, 2006 10:10 AM