BooMan’s post yesterday — “On Kos and Special Interest Groups” — speaks to a grand strategy that I favor.
My grand strategy ain’t so grand. It’s plain and simple. Take back the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Then take any contrarian conservative Democrats to the woodshed.
The horses — them be us spirited wild ones, whinnying loudly all the way (just cuz we’re noisy by nature) — will move the cart (which holds all Democratic party candidates) into the House, the Senate, and the White House. Thereafter, we can bitch, lobby, run primary candidates against, make the life miserable of any Democrat who fails to live up to the basic standards of the Democratic party.
Why? Take a look at this morning’s sad and sobering news stories:
GOP Blocks Investigations Over Katrina & Downing St. Memo
On Capitol Hill, Republicans have blocked several efforts by Democrats to seek investigations or information on Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war and the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
- In the Senate, Republicans killed a proposal by Hillary Clinton for an independent investigation of the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Her proposal was rejected on a party line vote of 54 to 44. A new CNN/USA Today Gallup poll shows that 70 percent of the country supports an independent investigation.
- In the House, Republicans rejected attempts by Democrats to force the Bush administration to surrender documents on pre-war intelligence about Iraq connected to the Downing Street Memo. The memo revealed …
- Also on Wednesday, Republicans on the Judiciary and International Relations Committees rejected attempts by Democrats to compel the Bush administration to turn over information and records related to the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame.
How much more powerless can we get? Not much.
How about we take back the jobs that we, and the American people (as they’re coming to realize), deserve and desperately need?
Politics is an art. Let’s be artful about it.
Postscript:
Those are the reflections of an Eastern Washington-raised farm girl who was the token hick accepted at Stanford on a Board of Trustees scholarship so many moons ago that I’m embarrassed to say (particularly since my current resume hardly reflects such a journey).
There’s something about walking through the pear orchard and Concord grape rows in the twilight, hearing the steers bellow and the pigs snort … looking up at the desert, sage-brush-strewn Horse Heaven Hills bridling the Yakima Valley — that stays in the blood of a girl who otherwise escaped into books and politics.
It was so elemental that it is in my bones. The plain hills with a romantic name. The bright stars at night (because then there was no light pollution), and my big bold handsome father proudly pointing out every constellation to my brother and me. And, some nights, the stunning Aurora Borealis, which made my father leap to his feet in excitement, dragging us outside to see its light show, its light fantastic.
And so it is how I mostly approach everything, including politics. Simply, sparsely, soulfully.
(Part of this was posted as a comment at Daily Kos.)
That’s the strategy I agree with. And I appreciate how you managed to articulate this without calling names and invoking Republican stereotypes.
Thank you so much. I care so deeply about this…. my daughter’s, my grandchildren (I hope!), all the children I worked with at the school two years ago and who I see at the grocery store and riding their bikes down the street … their future. We must leave them with something to work with.
I can subsume some of my own preferences, for the moment, to win back the POWER. Then we’ll take care of the regressive Democrats… and how.
Excellent, Susan, I am with you in your plan….
Furthermore, maybe we should have a draft nomination of Susanhu for Prez.
And yessssssssss we need to take back jobs for the American people, Lou Dobbs (CNN)had an excellent piece about that last night, as he continues to speak out about this disgraceful approach/direction of our government.
(I’d do a George Bush and surround myself with the best minds — beginning with you, BooMan, Meteor Blades, kid oakland, and on and on … and bring in Bill Clinton, AL GORE (!), Gen. Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and more … and be a proud figurehead.)
This is CROSS-POSTED at Daily Kos.
Yeah Susan! I’m with you all the way… without rancor, namecalling, or fingerpointing. We stay focused, we stay loud and we stay together.
and I have always known that politics is an art. I watched grandma Vera for years make art in a red state. God it is so hard for me to focus on the art when I have road rash from this administration on my ass. This is why I might need an editor. This is why I need all of you and your wise words Susan.
Don’t you wish we could bring your Grandma Vera here, and ask her to post?
(I’m always so glad to see you … I was so worried about you, in Alabama … seeing your STRONG WOMAN / PERSON posts helps me a lot.)
Amen.
This is not the time to be insisting on perfect candidates or narrow special interest issues. In light of the last five years, I cannot believe that anyone in their right mind could think differently.
For reminding us all of the goal we ultimately want to achieve, without calling us names or belittling us. I want my kids to be able to grow up healthy, go to college instead of war, find jobs that make them happy and pay them enough to live on, so they can have children who do the same. I want to stop wondering to myself at my son’s lacrosse games what kind of world these guys are going to become adults in.
Onward…
Nice theory, but problematic in practice for several reasons:
In short, “ideological purity” – having a party that actually stands for something, and can articulate a coherent set of core principles that its politicians will not violate – has to come first. This is how Alexa McDonough rebuilt the national NDP here in Canada from total irrelevancy. She didn’t go hunting for conservatives to help bolster her ranks. She (and Layton after her) have focused on having a cohesive, progressive policy. And while they may not be the government, they’re the power in the current Parliament, and stand to gain seats during the next election because they’ve stuck to their guns.
Pragmatism Doesn’t Work.
In the short run, I agree with Susan – we must get the power out of the hands of the Republicans who are sending our country straight to hell. Just ask the survivors from NO – that was hell. Ask the troops in Iraq, and the Iraqis. And then there are those we can’t ask, in both places because they are dead.
We have to do it as soon as possible. 2006 elections is our best shot for turning the tide. Winning back Congress, even if it doesn’t get Bush/Cheney impeached at least means that they can no longer ram vile legislation through.
But I would also argue that our best shot for doing that is to run Democrats with some real principles who are willing to stand up and say to voters directly – this is what I believe, these are my core principles on which I will base my decisions when elected, and these principles are centered around making America a better place for every American and being a good citizen of the world.
Voters are starved for this. Now too many see politicians in general – and unfortunately Democratic politicians in particular – as “I’ll say whatever you want to hear, whatever the polls and the focus groups tell me won’t offend, in order to get elected. When I am, I’ll be looking out for myself and my cronies – not you.”
Straight-talking, gutsy, truly progressive candidates are already out there, starting their 06 campaigns. Not in every district – running for office is a huge commitment. Our local groups almost always have one of more of these candidates to speak to us. I am always in awe of them – how they are willing to put in so many hours of work, risk their financial security, be willing to be publicly and viciously attacked. There are others who are thinking about it, and need to be assured that they will be supported if they jump in.
Susan, you are right. Number one priority is get the power away from the R’s. They are literally killing us. They have already done damage that our children and (I hope! (me too) our grandchildren) will suffer from. They must be stopped before they do more damage. The thing is – I think these straight talking progressive candidates are the ones who can win in many districts. Enough districts to turn the tide and give us back Congress.
Now is the time to get to work. find those candidates. Get to know them. Figure out how to support them. Start now thinking about how to make more time in your life for political work. Next Spring, next summer, there’s going to be a lot of work to do getting them elected. Look at Hackett – more and more people are experiencing buyer’s remorse over 04. Give them a real alternative and they will vote. That’s part of the art of politics.
You’ve hit on a key phrase, Janet.
In the short run …
It’s a strategy to regain power. Once we have the restoration of SOME power — we have none now — then all bets are off. And we can go after the Democrats who appeased too often.
Running principled candidates can be a winning short run strategy. Not in every district, and some of the Dem’s that piss us off the most have safe seats and will be re-elected – as you say, we’ll deal with them later.
But we also should be looking for, and supporting when we find them, Paul Hackett types who will mobilize currently turned off, stay home voters. In my area, we have a couple of Congressional seats that were won by R’s in 04 with no D opposition candidate – or only token ones (file and disappear). Now there are progressive D’s running for these seats, and they’re serious, they’re already at work running. We can win these – in the short run. I meant, this is part of the short run strategy.
For these seats, there will be no Democratic challenger in the primary. But I think that in districts where there is a progressive Democrat running against a conservative Democrat in the primary, working hard for the progressive in the primary could pay off too. In more districts than may be obvious now, the progressive may have a better shot at defeating the R if they make it to the general election, because voters are increasingly frustrated and disgusted with “politics as usual.” Average voters, not political junkies like us. Of course, if the conservative D wins the primary, we have to be willing to get over our disappointment and support the Dem – because, yes, getting the R’s out is first priority.
support Pennacchio in the primary.
vote for Casey in the election.
recruit and finance Casey’s replacement 6 years from now.
The alternative is Santorum and a vote for Frist.
Do we want Casey to be our Senator? No. But if he wins, we vote for him because we need that seat out of the hands of man-on-dog.
Sitting out in protest will not convince the Dems we know what we’re doing. Giving them a majority will convince them we know what we are doing.
But by voting for Casey, you are rewarding the behavior of the party bigwigs who forced Casey on us with no choice. And one thing I know, if they get the desired result with their behavior, they’ll do it again. And again.
It’s a problem for me…I refused to vote for anyone for treasurer last fall becuase it was Casey or a Republican.
my first and last points, which is how we mitigate the false view that more Caseys are the answer.
Well, I want Santorum gone, but I’m pissed as hell about the idea of replacing him with Casey. With everything Santorum is doing to shoot himself in the foot, I think this election is more about how much people hate Santorum, rather than what a great guy Casey is. But the people who conspired to run him won’t see it that way. They’ll be high-fiving each other that they were so brilliant, and looking ahead to try it again in 2008.
And I don’t understand how either of your points will do anything to mitigate the false view that more Caseys are the answer. Can you explain that?
If Casey wins the nomination there are only two outcomes. He wins or he loses.
If he loses then we lost the most winnable Senate race in the country against one of the most odious and unpopular politicians in the country.
While that might discourage Schumer from recruiting more centrists in northern blue states, it will be a disaster.
So, how do we mitigate against Casey being seen as a savior if he wins? By immediately making it clear that we will look to oust Casey the first time he is up for re-election. The stronger Pennacchio runs in the primary the more momentum there will be for someone to challenge a sitting Senator.
Also, if the Dems do really well nationwide, Casey’s success will be seen as part of a historical realignment, and not as something about his unique positions.
The stronger Pennacchio runs in the primary the more momentum there will be for someone to challenge a sitting Senator.
What do you think the chances are for Pennacchio to make a strong enough showing to limit Casey’s being viewed as the Golden Boy Savior of democracy in PA? Just curious.
It’s not just Chuck, it’s all the House races too. We win these races the DCCC gave up on and we have a powerful counterpoint.
I actually think the house races are more important in that regard.
(ps, I’m not running off and sulking, but damn I want Schumer and co to know how pissed I am at their behavior!)
Giving them a majority will convince them we know what we are doing.
I agree strongly with what you said, but I fear the end results simply convince “them” that “they” know what they’re doing. The spin on the success won’t be “liberals and progressives really took one for the team this year,” but “we told you all along that running to the center was the way to go.”
I do support the strategy you and SusanHu outline, but I also fear it simply leads to a centrist majority, and stops there no matter what we do afterward. That would be better than the current situation, but it is not my end goal.
look at your sig line. Think about it.
Do you think Man on Dog in the majority is going to end torture?
But I’m sure you know where I’m coming from. I’m not new to this–I’ve been holding my nose in the ballot box since I was old enough to vote. But I often have a hard time seeing how this liberal’s vote for a candidate I dislike sends any message other than a thumbs up to conservative Democrats and to the strategy of “run to the center.”
Don’t worry, though, BooMan. I’m a good soldier. (Real good–I just convinced the final household on a long and very visible drive through town to put up a yard sign for Colorado Referenda C & D, while at the same time realizing that what I’m working for is simply a band-aid over a massive structural budget problem that no one really wants to deal with.)
I think all this debate is also orthogonal to the real issue in politics: as long as it costs a million dollars to run for Congress, no candidate will ever truly represent those without money.
Won’t make a difference if the “mainstream” bloggers, the media, and the party machine refuse to acknowledge Pennacchio’s existence. This point is also irrelevant, because of #2 – we show that, even though there is a solid progressive, we will rally behind whatever candidate the party leaders decide is electable.
Good luck with that. If we can’t do it now, why can we do it 6 years from now? Answer: We can’t.
This is the nuance that has to be present…
Winning elections and building party that party MUST be done in tandem…
I am all for winning… who isn’t ..except Joe LIEberman… but we must recognize that it is not a win if we continue to fill Democratic campaigns with Republicans… because they ALWAYS come back to bit us in the ass.
What is more simple than chewing gum and walking at the same time… someone has floated this meme that winning has become an either or situtation and it is based on that premise I vehemently disagree.
In fact… we seem to be having a harding time winning with these so called “electable” candidates than with tried and true real DEMS…
It seems a small point but… we no longer have the luxury of “going back” and straightening out the kinks… this mentality is right now confirming a wingnut as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS for the next 30 minimum… and I am 1000% sure the O’Connor justice will be just as bad…
For heavens sakes I could see if the GOP was polling in the 80s or 70s or 60s or even 50s … but they are not…what the hell are we waiting for…
But I would also argue that our best shot for doing that is to run Democrats with some real principles who are willing to stand up and say to voters directly – this is what I believe, these are my core principles on which I will base my decisions when elected, and these principles are centered around making America a better place for every American and being a good citizen of the world.
Voters are starved for this. Now too many see politicians in general – and unfortunately Democratic politicians in particular – as “I’ll say whatever you want to hear, whatever the polls and the focus groups tell me won’t offend, in order to get elected. When I am, I’ll be looking out for myself and my cronies – not you.”
Excuse my language, but ex-fucking-xactly. The way to rebuild the party and gain power isn’t by working to get Caseys and Kerrys and Clintons elected. Because, as Parker so eloquently puts it, they will turn around and bite you in the ass. They will defect on some important bill or nomination (bankruptcy, John Roberts), and that will hurt your ability to use that bill/nomination against your opponents next election. Perhaps fatally. Or they’ll simply weaken your party identity.
And even leaving that aside, supporting your opponents is stupid politics.
This is such a tough issue. I have usually come down to voting my conscience in primaries, and then doing my best to get whatever Democrat won the primaries into office.
What I am not sold on is the idea that conservative Democrats really have a better chance of winning than moderate Democrats. I understand the logic of why this might be true, but I’m not sure it really is true. I hear people say things like “I might not agree with all of X’s positions, but at least I know where he stands.” Could it be the case that a sincere and determined moderate (or even progressive!) would more persuasive to voters than a bland DINO trying not to offend anyone? O r maybe this is wishful thinking.
I have usually come down to voting my conscience in primaries…
Most people do…that is why democrats are losing. This is not rocket science…
Kerry was an exception… I have yet to meet ten people who actually liked him and knew what he stood for… he was just a vote against Bush…
But the average voter votes with their gut… Hackett was a gut reaction… most people can not stomach Casey… so what do you think is going to happen when Sanatorum unleases his multimillion dollar war chest on Casey… he will win… because even Dems don’t like Casey and what polling lead Casey has now …I can bet 200000% that the GOP is crafting the nastiest filthiest smear campaign to keep people “AWAY” from the polls… because under those horrible conditions you really gotta love the guy to come out on a cold rainy day to vote.
And this is what the Dems refuse to acknowledge…
Lieberman is safe because Republicans are going to vote for him…
“Could it be the case that a sincere and determined moderate (or even progressive!) would more persuasive to voters than a bland DINO trying not to offend anyone?”
I don’t think it’s wishful thinking. Talk to non-political-junkies. Elected representatives with guts who will look out for everyone – not just their cronies – is exactly what they are looking for.
In my area, Rep. Lloyd Doggett is very liberal – unapologetically pro-choice, one of the first to sign Conyer’s petition, etc – and (thanks to DeLay) now has to run in a fairly conservative district. Won by sixty-something percent last Nov. Because he is straight talking and really fights for his constituents and the voters know this and trust him.
Thereafter, we can bitch, lobby, run primary candidates against, make the life miserable of any Democrat who fails to live up to the basic standards of the Democratic party.
Sorry… but isn’t this the same thing that Kos and Co have been advocating… get any ole Dem elected then figure the rest out later…
Is there a reason why taking back the COngress Dems can not chew and walk at the same time.
I had yet to see where being a true Democrat has hurt a candidate… that was not first damaged by the backbiting of the DLC/NDN types frist ie Dean.
In fact Hackett just proved that even in the reddest area running against the local anti-abortion president a REAL Dem could make headway…
What you and Kos are advocating is exactly “What’s the matter with Kansas”… there is no putting thing son the back burner and coming back later… because as you see with the Dems “keeping their powder dry” there is no going back on a lifetime appoint as Chief Justice to the Supreme court… sorry but I am not buying this…
I prefer your other comment in this thread where you ask why we can’t do both.
One area where Susan, Markos, Armando, and I all agree is that there is no higher imperative that getting at least one house of Congress back so we can hold hearings and control the floor.
Nothing else matters more.
If we devour ourselves over the inadequacies of our current leadership, we ignore that we are trying to show that leadership there is a better way. If we can’t get them a majority then we are irrelevent. But if we can, we become power brokers.
And they key to understanding this is that if Susan and I become power brokers, that means that you and everyone else here becomes a power broker. You get heard, your opinion matters again.
I know I’m asking you to drink a form of kool-aid, but if you don’t believe in it, it will never happen.
except you’re wrong, because the strategy being advocated lets the enemy into our camp, trojan horses like Casey and “Democrats for Life <sic>” are actively working at crosspurposes to a fundamental value of a majority in the party.
We aren’t “power brokers” … we’re just voters, and they work for us. There is NO evidence that these hacks work for the left when the left works hard for them. Within a week of the election, the DLC/insider hacks were going after young voters, gays and women instead of looking in the mirror at their own shitty decisions and inability to attack a moronic incompetent criminal. NARAL, PFAW and many other groups on the left hit the pavement, sent contributions, bought ads and did vital GOTV/protect the vote campaigns, and were rewarded with vilification using the very attack talking points used by the Republicans.
Booman, I know you want to do good things for your city, your state and your country. Quit listening to the ward heelers at dailyKaukus. They aren’t working for us, they are working for the party insiders.
I’m not listening to them. Whatever gave you that idea?
I don’t like Casey running and being our nominee (in all likelihood). Am I going to shoot myself in the foot over it? No.
We are in a battle for control of the party, and we have to show results. The number one result we can show is a majority in at least one house. And that means that when the primaries are over, we have to put a majority in. Then we can point to all the races where we made a difference, where a progressive won in a moderate district, or a moderate won in a conservative district.
This is a long term project to take power away from the traditonal democratic money sources. To succeed we must show results.
That is not Kos’s view, even if it sounds like it superficially.
maybe different reasoning than kos, but same effect.
A majority counts for nothing if our people are crossing the aisle on women’s health and other important issues.
I will not vote for an anti-woman candidate. If I wanted to do that, I’d vote for a real one, not some legacy hack like Casey.
Of course, I’m not in PA, so all I can do is scream support for Pennachio and hope that the PA Dems turn their backs on Schumer’s artless attempts to build a 21st Century resurrection of the Daley machine.
Luckily, in my district in Milwaukee, my Rep Gwen Moore is pretty liberal, and I’m represented by Feingold. Haven’t made up my mind if I’m going to support Kohl yet … he’s pretty worthless.
Who are you kidding…?
Once they are in they’re in…
Stop the foolishness… no one is going to mount a campaign against Casey in six years… I think this is the part that infuriates me… the premise of we will go back and fix is 1000% hogwash and the biggest LIE going… no we will not go back and fix things…
Fucking Salazar was chomping at the bit to screw over the Democratic base time he stepped foot in DC… so please do not insult our intelligence that magically that these assholes will be replaced later… just look as Susan’s post trying to save the seel out woman in her area from being replaced b a Green… it is all lies…
Then vote for Santorum to send a message. Go ahead.
Either you want to go on being powerless and raging against the inept efforts to get power, or you are willing to work to beat Casey once he wins.
When you say no one will fight Casey you are being fatalistic. I’m not sitting on my ass here in this state. I’m working to change things so that it is no longer true that no one will do these things.
That is the answer…
either pretend not to see the truth and continue the fantasy that if we elect ugly duckling Dems that one day they will become beautiful swans… or we vote for the GOP…
no who is not facing reality
I am feeling SO PROUD this morning. I finally remembered to tape Martha for my daughter Darcy! :):) I had to set an alarm on my computer, of course, to remember!
So I’ve got it turned on, and Diddy (formerly P Diddy) is her special guest, and they just did a rap together to open the show. Pretty cute.
back to politics … 🙂
L:ucky you, they delayed showing Martha’s new nightt ime show here until next week…
what show were you watching, was it her daytime show? What station carries that show.
KONG, the little brother station of NBC affiliate KING in Seattle.
It’s not on any of the major affiliate stations in Seattle. But KONG is carried in all the same markets, and is popular … e.g., they carry Oprah and Dr. Phil at night after both shows have aired in the afternoon on KING.
It’s a pretty cute show so far! Diddy is a very nice guest for her. I missed the first two shows, much to my daughter’s consternation … I wonder if she talked about prison.
Susan, while I don’t agree with you. . .I agree with Eagarwaen above. . .I could cry with gratitude to you for your style of expressing your opinion. Such graceful writing, such graceful good manners. And it’s not as if you don’t ever express yourself vehemently or profanely or angrily! Hell yes, you do! But you don’t attack the rest of us who might disagree with you. As my Aunt DeeDee might have said, “You done been brung up right, girl.” And p.s., I love your father!
I do go back and forth on this. I’m not set in concrete on it.
But, when I stand back — and look at things the way the great old pols in Washington state (like my hero Warren Magnuson) would have — I know we have to be clever because we have NO power.
It’s a role that many women throughout time have adopted. They were automatically given less status and in many cases no power. But they were conniving and clever, and found a way to insert their views, their intelligence, into those in power.
We are at an unprecedented low. The Republicans have taken over all forms of government … from the judiciary to the presidency to all federal agencies to all of Congress.
If we’re not a bit clever, things will stay just as they are.
I’m going through pretty much the same thought process I had to go through to hold my nose and vote for John Kerry in 2004. He was never my candidate … he has a goofy voting record (against the Gulf War, for the Iraq war authorization) that can’t be explained easily … he and Gephardt sabotaged the campaigns of better candidates … he made off with a big campaign chest instead of fighting for every vote in Ohio (I can see both sides of that, btw, but it wasn’t right for him to beg for money for a legal fund, then not use it for same).
I don’t want to get into a John Kerry debate. My POINT is that if I could make myself vote for John Kerry because the ALTERNATIVE was incalculably worse, then so can we all.
For now. Biddin’ time … being clever … swallowing up as much clout and power as we can.
Can you IMAGINE the kind of POWER we wiill have if we stand up firmly, loudly, passionately for every Democratic candidate in 2006 and 2008?
I’ve already noted the doom of the reelection campaign of WA state U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell.
Why my pessisism?
Because the “progressive” Democrats in WA state LOATHE her…. no matter how many things I bring up that she’s done right, they find an equal number to prove how she’s betrayed them.
I predict she wil lose. And to the just-resigned CEO of SAFECO.
We will have an insurance magnate as our U.S. Senator from Washington state.
Because a bunch of Democrats got in a snit, and gave her — at best — tepid support.
In her case, every OUNCE of support will make or break her campaign. It is IMPERATIVE that every Democrat swallow his/her pride just a little, and stand up and fight hard for her.
The other outcome is too horrible to contemplate.
In a situation like the one you describe (which I’m not up on), if there are no better candidates, I would vote for Cantwell. But there are many districts in this country where either no Dem is running or the potential slate is still wide open. Right now, I think candidates who tend to lean right are likely to feel more encouragement to run for those various seats. Progressive candidates are likely to feel more trepidation about doing so, because. . .well, look who the party backs. Every time we back a more conservative candidate we foster an environment that brings forth more conservative candidates. It’s a vicious circle.
There’s one way in which I think maybe your analogy to women’s rights doesn’t hold up. . .and I mean that in only the happiest way. Women were alone in their homes; it was easy for the rest of society to ignore and overlook us. But everybody’s looking at what the Bush administration is doing. Esp. since Katrina, everybody’s looking and many many people who managed to ignore it before can no longer do so.
So here’s the deal. . .voters may. . .may. . .get there before we do. What if we threw an election and voters were ready to vote for more progressive candidates and the candidates weren’t there because we had spent our time and money on more conservative ones? That would be a crying shame. We have to take the gamble of concentrating on our ideals and our progressive candidates so that if it happens that the voters demand change, we will be ready for them. Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but it would be a nightmare to get our chance. . .and to have already blown it.
This is my favorite comment in this thread. “So here’s the deal. . .voters may. . .may. . .get there before we do. What if we threw an election and voters were ready to vote for more progressive candidates and the candidates weren’t there because we had spent our time and money on more conservative ones? That would be a crying shame. We have to take the gamble of concentrating on our ideals and our progressive candidates so that if it happens that the voters demand change, we will be ready for them. Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but it would be a nightmare to get our chance. . .and to have already blown it.”
I want to win. I want the R’s OUT at all costs. But I lie awake worrying that we will lose because, as you say, the voters will get ahead of us, and we’ll lose by being too timid, not by being too bold.
How long are we going to say “next time”, “next election cycle”? We are witnessing the destruction of the Democratic Party – at the hands of the Democratic Party, and the destruction of our country – at the hands of self interest.
The Democratic Party has become a creaky old tub taking on water for years. The heart and soul of the party has already been thrown overboard in favor of corporate cash. Look around, as long as the Democratic Party is seen as just as bad as the Republican Party – and if you can’t draw a bright line of contrast with this set of mo fo’s, God help us all, we are adding to the problem, not solving it. If we put people over party, people over power for the sake of power, we can and will make a difference.
The current state of Republican vs. Democrat is a distinction without a difference. Why not stand together as Americans to force our government to actually represent us, regardless of their political affiliation? Do you think most Americans want corruption, abuse of power, woefully inadequate government response to loss of life? Hell no. But instead of debating the real issues, we’re all too willing to toe the party line, be a good Democrat, a good Republican, while the country plunges further into decay.
Nothing worse than losing everything for a subset of jingoism.
I find that an example of “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” The distinction without a difference argument is one I’ve heard thousands of times, over decades … but it has not borne out to be factually based.
For starters — just as one small example — if Al Gore had been president in 2001, we likely would have invaded Afghanistan following 9/11 but Al Gore would have also stuck it out, paying incredible attention to the rebuilding of that country.
Al Gore would have also enacted immediately energy savings controls, using 9./11 to motivate people to conserve and recycle and buy energy-smart products, and on and on.
It would have been as different as night from day.
ALSO: I’d like to ask you to review the news stories I cite in the story, from Democracy Now!’s headlines today.
Why did Amy Goodman bunch those stories together this morning?
Well, aside from all of the stories spelling defeat for the American people, it is important to note that, in each instance, it was the DEMOCRATS who tried to help the American people and the REPUBLICANS who stopped the Democrats from helping the American people.
Just one question… why can’t we do both?
Why is this always an either or situation?
We can either run a GOP-lite candidate where the enitre Dem apparatus will back…like Casey
Or we can run a real Dem where the Dem apparatus sits on its hands until they realize he might win and they could take no credit like Hackett
Is there some reason why the Democratic party can not back the Hacketts… I may be simple but that seems like a win win situation… and exactly how the GOP took back the federal government.
WE CAN! You’re 100% correct!
But we will not have a Paul Hackett in every race.
In Washington state, we have incumbent Maria Cantwell who is a mainstream Democrat.
We must support her in 2006, and not pick away at her like I see the “progressive” Democrats doing all the time on the Washington state political mailing lists that I’m on.
Where we can FIND a Paul Hackett — by all means! But we also need to be careful, and not just go for any person because she/he talks progressive politics.
There’s a Green Party guy in Wash. state who wants to run against Cantwell in the primary as a Democrat.
He’s on one of the mailing lists I’m on. For starters, the guy is CLUELESS about federal government and Congress. Then, he’s always bashing Cantwell. Third, he never goes to ANY Democratic party meetings or picnics or anything else … he’s just a troublemaker, imho.
So, we don’t need people like him in 2006. After we have majorities in Congress — you betcha! I’ll be more tolerant of the likes of him.
But I’d sure prefer a seasoned, knowledgeable Democrat who’s more progressive than Cantwell — someday — way in the future.
For now, she’s okay. She did vote for the Iraq authorization, but did so because she’s a first-term Sen. and half of Wash. state is very conservative. She voted AGAINST Gonzales’ confirmation and gave an incredible floor speech against him. She fought hard — with John Kerry — to save the Arctic wilderness. Yes, she confirmed Condi Rice … but she’s working like a dog to expose ENRON’s theft of millions of dollars from Wash. state taxpayers. And on and on.
She will definitely do for now.
Why the fuck not? Why can’t we? People keep saying “You can’t, it’s not feasible, don’t even try”… But why can’t we? Hackett was running in deep, deep red territory against a GOP candidate who was a shoe-in. He almost won. If there’s anywhere in the country more red than the district he was running in, we have no chance of winning there anyway, so we might as well run a progressive to make a difference. If the district in question is less red… Then run a progressive and win.
We have no reason not to run a Paul Hackett in every race. None. They’re politically viable, and they’re not exactly hard to find. They don’t even have to be particularly charismatic. They just have to articulate progressive positions clearly, succinctly, and repeatedly.
“Settling” for misogynist, homophobic “Democrats” is like “settling” for Stalin instead of Hitler. It looks good on paper, but you wind up worse off in the long run.
I believe Ike when he warned about the military industrial complex, I believe MLK and RFK were gunned down because they united people against oppression, injustice and violence, and they scared the hell out of the few who enrich themselves through oppression, injustice and violence. I believe Bill Clinton gave us today’s corporate media and removed the last barriers to the wholesale financial corruption, money laundering, and fraud that feeds the few on the lifeblood of the many.
I know the Democratic Party allowed Bush steal TWO elections and stood by when thousand of Democratic voters had their most basic rights trampled. I know a Democratic Senate majority gave Bush his Iraq authorization and the Patriot Act.
Al Gore? John Kerry? You can’t tell me that either one of them didn’t see the corporate agenda, the neocon agenda, and didn’t see their own party’s complicity in that furthering that agenda. They took their money, they shut their mouths. That baby drown in the bath water a looong time ago. It needs a proper burial.
It’s time to be Americans, neighbors, human beings, not good little Democrats and good little Republicans. We are stronger together and the false distinction only serves to divide us.
Do you have anything that resembles a plan for doing this?
We can come together, find common ground, and work to create democracy rather than maintain or further the illusion of democracy. It’s a bit like mutual disarmament, tricky, but a much better than mutually assured destruction.
We can talk politics or we can talk policies. I find it valuable to remember the global unity of 9/12. Suddenly, our common experiences as human beings dwarfed our political, religious, cultural and geographical differences. We are first and foremost, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives. What a fine 24 hours that was.
So, we need to stop waiving our little R and D flags, and meet our brothers and sisters on common ground. There is common ground to be found on social security, wages, jobs, health care, the environment, justice, civil rights, and even the war in Iraq. Let’s build on the support that exists through non-partisan organizations that share our values 365 days a year, election cycle or not. Let’s build coalitions where they don’t exist. Yes, it will take time, energy and money. But so will waiting for the next 4, 8, 12 years with the system that we know is working against us.
One method is the definition of insanity. The other is just crazy enough to work.
I can’t do it, Susanhu, as much as it may make sense to some. In Colorado right now there is only one Democratic candidate running for an empty (term limited) slot. He is anti-choice.
It seems likely that dread pirate Roberts will be on the Supreme Court, Bush will nominate an even more puritanical O’Connor replacement and women everywhere will be completely hosed. This makes the state positions even more critical.
I am actively writing the party heads to let them know I won’t vote for such a candidate, and to get themselves in order NOW.
In many ways this feels like being told to marry a dud of a boyfriend and change him after the wedding. Some of us are old and wise enough to know that ain’t going to happen. So if the Democratic party wants my votes, and those I bring to the polls through canvassing, then it better start listening pronto.
Either way, there’s regret.
Imagine the dilemma of Democracy for Colorado, a solid bunch of real progressives who haven’t stopped working since Howard Dean’s “What I Want To Know” speech of 2003. We try to locate and encourage candidates so we can promote them, walk and knock for them, and give help. But even in Denver, the best Democrats you find are a highly mixed bag. The only face on our “DFCList” from last year I can call progressive without smirking was running for County Commissioner in Boulder…nuff said.
We chose not to endorse anyone in last year’s Senate primary, mostly because DFA said never to take sides in a primary, and because we’d formed only a few weeks before and were finding our legs. Mike Miles is one of the few truly progressive candidates we’ll ever see in this state, and we were all working for his campaign, but for staying out of it, DFC was savaged relentlessly by fellow liberals who also supported him.
At the Dem Party Central Committee meeting two weeks ago, a State Representative DFC endorsed sat behind me. He pointedly refused to clap or smile during the Stonewall Democrats’ speech, although his enthusiasm was obvious at all other times.
Then we voted on whether or not the Party should create an internal Progressive Initiative to reach out to Greens and unaffiliateds. It won with about 60% support, with the aforementioned gentleman loudly opposing it. After it passed, he grumbled to his wife: “Why do we even need this? I’m a progressive, everyone here is.”
And please don’t get me started on Bill Ritter. He’s nearly been anointed already, Salazar-style, but he’s going to lose big-time because he’s anti-choice in a heavily pro-choice state. It’s as if the old, dead Democratic Party machinery continues to work even when the shop bosses have changed for the better.
A few comments on the Grand Strategy. I take as a given that for most of us, our involvement constitutes (1) contributing (2) voting (3) grassroots efforts, ranging from small meet-ups to working with a campaign.
First, the Democracy Alliance has stated that its fundraising goals will “inevitably come in part at the expense of more traditional Democratic groups, although alliance officials say donors have committed to maintaining past contribution levels.”
I think that it is fair to say that when it comes to contributing, many of us have been put in an “either/or” position, that is, “Grand Strategy vs Special Interests”. We do not have infinitely deep pockets. Below, I will return and comment on why I think the entire “Grand Strategy vs Special Interests” debate is poorly positioned for Democratic success.
Second, the various proposals that have been killed in the House/Senate are a direct result of the 2002/2004 elections. The Democrats have failed in presenting substantive programs that attract the American voter.
In fact, the GOP has been more successful in convincing voters to abandon traditional/special interests in favor of party. Using the ‘2% shift’ in the black vote as an example, I will paraphrase some of the comments in More young blacks ready to embrace the GOP. The youth of today are focused on building wealth and some are ready to abandon the historical/traditional ties to a civil rights legacy in favor of the GOP planks of entrepreneurship and opportunity.
There is a bottom line. People get involved in politics to improve their standing. While the general betterment of society is a laudable goal, it falls by the wayside, realistically speaking, when individuals start to worry about their standing, financially and politically, particularly during less generous times.
In my area, the middle class (hardly a left-wing fringe) is talking about outsourcing, a policy that has been supported by both GOP/Dem politicians. My Democratic senators are on board with the India Caucus, as well as potential Democratic presidential candidate Clinton, etc, etc. Sirota has identified this as a key issue for winning support for a Democratic economic populist campaign. However, it isn’t enough to shout “outsourcing is bad for America” from rooftops.
I have not seen a position paper that outlines how Democrats/Democratic candidates will work to balance the interests of American workers vs the interests of corporations. This is an example of how speaking in only the most general tones without any substance will fail to attract voters. In fact, in the absence of any realistic discussion, I see a continued migration to policies that emphasize individual wealth-building to leverage a rapidly-changing dynamic. It makes no difference whether the message is realistic or not — increasingly, people will choose self-preservation over “getting left behind with the suckers.”
Another aspect of the Grand Strategy is the advisability of contributing money/time/resources to non-local political campaigns. Again, assuming that one’s pockets are not infinitely deep, this necessarily comes at the expense of supporting local issues. The Democrats as a whole have not presented any substantive or compelling reason for me to support, say Jon Tester in MT, over another $50 to my local fire department. In fact, recent events have deepened my commitment to local infrastructure in terms of my money; my time; my efforts in hosting informal meetups to discuss issues of importance. Again, this is just another variant on Grand Strategy vs Special Interests. My Special Interests are regional and local.
It goes without saying that my vote(s) in 2006 will be regional/local. This is the cornerstone of representative democracy. This is why Melissa Bean only answers email from her constituents, much to the consternation of some online donors questioning her CAFTA vote.
The Art of Politics at its core is necessarily an appeal to voter self-interest. At a time when I was a ‘solid, team Democrat’, Democrat was synonymous with pro-choice, pro-civil rights, which in turn speaks to me about economic fairness and liberty in the marketplace. Take that away, and I am left with two parties that compete for my time, money and vote on a more primitive level, one where the Democrats are doomed to fail because the GOP does it so much better .
There is no victory w/o a reason to fight. The party is where it is because it has stood for nothing more than getting reelected for 3 decades now. It has abandoned its base, its accomplishments and its reasons for being. It exists only to continue to exist. Political party as brain-eating zombie.
Party members have become a mere mercenary army, aiming their votes in return for spoils.
It is possible to have strong principles AND be open to compromise AND win elections. I offer Russ Feingold, who wins by good majorities even in very conservative rural WI, and the badly missed Paul Wellstone as examples.
The ward heelers at the dailyKaukus are just wrong on this. Wrong, wrong and more wrong. Their NDN “strategy” of a warmed over, net-savvy reborn DLC will only result in more erosion of our liberties to the corporations and the religious right. This relentless Siren call to the “center” will only continue to smash us all on the rocks.
“There’s something about Hope, that for me, doesn’t go down easily, and burns on the way back up.
It’s the pasturized, hollowed-out passivity to it – or what passes for it – that makes me scrunch up my lips and shake my head Hell no. It’s the same idle dream that tricksters and daemons, both human and other than human, have encouraged us to entertain for millenia. It’s Maitreya; it’s Hillary in ’08; it’s our benevolent Space Brothers; it’s Disclosure; it’s the lottery; it’s the Rapture. It’s the pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die, or when a Democrat is returned to the White House. It’s even the fatalistic anticipation of Doom, and the Final Release.
However it’s tarted up, the message is always the same: Just wait. Just a little bit longer.”
Jeff Wells
Rigorous Intuition
I have a question. How many here advocating this type of voting have said of the Republicans, “How can they vote against their best interest?” Isn’t that what is being advocated here? Instead of settling for just any dem why not work on finding the best possible dem. Instead of waiting for ’06 why are we not working together now to recruit candidates that will work for the benefit of the whole not just special interests. Can we not find better candidates than the republican lites that vote against what we believe in?