Anyway, I wanted to make a couple of comments on their discussion.
- Voting based on Wedge Issues: Laura, didn't you and Jay (and the rest of us) vote for Elrich solely based on his slots for MD stance? By the way, what is going on with that? Has there been any progress on this?
- Arnold: Remember, he wasn't the first choice of the Republicans. It was actually Tom McClintock . The reason why Arnold won, was that he had a solid plan laid out to get our state out of major financial troubles. He kept hammering away on his 5 point plan that he promised would be met within the first 6 months of his term. He followed through and made it happen. The reason why he is getting some bad press now (or back in November) was that he took on Teacher Tenure, Union Dues, Parent Notification on Abortion, Debt Refinancing, and Prescription Drugs. He lost on everything, but at least he tried to make some major changes that every other republican and democrat was too scared to address.
- Dems need a plan: How do you build up support without a real plan? I mean this is Leadership 101. And then they wonder why they can't beat Bush and the Republicans!! I think it speaks volumes on the lack of direction for the party. Now I'm not as political as Eric and Laura, so someone like me needs to be reminded why I should vote for them, and it shouldn't be some platitudes on the country. Give me something that I can think about. Almost like what Arnold did in CA. Five key things that would improve the country with a solid timeline on completion. Hammer this home over the next 9 months. I think that everyone is getting tired of the same old platitudes that are provided to them by both the republicans and democrats.
4 comments:
Suggested music for this post:
Neil Young's "Revolution Blues"
Even if you don't like the jokes(oh but you will), disagree with the commentary(you better not, commie), and didn't go to Hereford(go back to Gilman, you trustfunding bitch), you'll thank me once you hear this song, and get the phrase "10,000 dune buggies coming down the mountain" against a background of jarring guitar lines stuck in your head.
Anyway, I thought Arnold ran on a campaign on removing alien sentinels at any cost along with a helipad in every yard. As for Elrich, nobody that flaunts the complete lack of sideburns as a fashion statement deserves a vote. He's the anti-Neil Young in so many ways.
I'm less political than you Professor Z, but much more so than Mr. W who of course thinks a world security policy consists of trying to keep other skaters from ripping off the hat he got at the Thai farmer swap meet, so I'll have to engage in a platitudinous reply.
How can the Dems seize the day?
1) THE WAR:
At this point, the alternative to war is an evacuation/retreat of a sort replaced with diplomatic bridge building around the world. That's basically what Kerry was suggesting and it came off sounding limp because talk often loses to bullets in that metaphysical game of rock, paper, scissors, we call US foreign policy debate and of course Kerry is made of wood. Does anyone have the golf balls to just write off the war as a mistake based on incorrect intelligence at this point? I think the US, esp. the Reps obviously, are far too invested in it as the first step of a world democracy campaign which begs the question, is that justifiable, advisable, a little pushy, or just flat out wrong. The answer of course is yes.
We very may well end up treating terrorism the same way we did the last scourge of the world, communism, with a series of seemingly inexplicable battles in far flung lands all in the name of building democracy. And what happens when democracy, the people's choice, in the middle east ends up being a theocratic dictatorship? These folks are fired up. Not everyone thinks like westerners. That's what difficult to understand for so many, to say nothing of the appeal of fanatisicm to the impoverished. Sure there is a very strong case for stabilizing the world and securing peace through providing the option of stable, secular governments around the world to those that want it. But is this really a reasonable proposition for America, and is this not the sort of thing that must develop from within the borders. The democrats must provide a serious doctrine on the role of minimal, purposeful military intervention and peaceful, economic based alternatives.
2) Gay marriage. Someone needs to stand up, draw a line in the dirt, and say it's cool with me. What the hell does it matter, and let the frothing detractors attempt to make a dignified, humanistic argument in opposition. I don't believe there is such a thing.
3) Social programs and taxes. Is it unrealistic to expect a somewhat fair model of redistributing wealth and resources to minimally penalize achievement, and maximize worthwile assistance? Probably. We're all doomed. First someone needs to meaningfully acknowledge that the poverty level in so many American cities is a disgrace. As to the disproportionate presence of poverty in minority communities, Republicans need to admit that capitalism is kind of a bitch when you start 200 years behind everyone else. Democrats need to admit that capitalism is also probably the best solution when you start 200 years behind everyone else. Not all social problems are ineffectual, nor wrongheaded. Expand the good ones, chuck the clunkers. Someone, somehow needs to get on this.
Less Howard Dean, and more Keira Knightly. That would also help.
Just another off-topic note for the Herefordites. HHS is running a program to collect prom dresses, for needy dressless girls I guess unless I'm missing something. Anyway, the high school message board now reads "Prom Dress drop off in the Main Office" I'm real tempted to change it to "the backseat of Dorf's CRX" just for old time's sake.
Don't you have a stupid engagement party to plan?
Good post.
1) On the war, one must ask the question if this war & enemy resembles the year:
a) 1967 or
b) 1939
Appeasement/diplomatic measures may have worked in the Vietname conquest, but it was disasterous vs. the Nazis pre-WWII.
How can the Democrats espouse appeasment and "diplomatic bridge bulding" without sounding like a bunch of tree-hugging pansies? That's the line they have been trying to walk since Carter & Iran, with no success.
2) I agree with you about gay marriage (even though there can be an argument made against it), but...
if a party wants to put this as a top-3 issue, they are doomed. Period. There are soooo many more issues in this country now that if you (or the Dems) want to focus on this, it sounds petty and wedge-ish, even prone to backfiring.
3) Totally disagree with you. Didn't we try expanded social programs and more spread-the-wealth initiatives from the mid-60s to the early 90s? And what did that result in? Nothing went away - our cities got worse.
More spending & programs are not the answer. That has been proven in our recent history.
OK - sorry for the late response. Here is what I think the Republicans should run on in 2006
1) Iraq War has made us safer. I'll take that question, Laura, and run with it. Laura lists several "facts" (some treu,some subjective), but forgets to mention the #1 fact:
We have not been attacked by terrorists on American soil since 9/11.
Think about that. Remember after 9/11 - I think 80-85% of the people expected us to be attacked again.
We have not.
I do believe this is a direct result of us taking the fight over there and fighting the enemy in Iraq, and not in America.
That's why it's vital that we recongize what the troops are doing - they are literally sacrificing their lives so that we can live the American way. They truly are defending our freedom.
The long term goal is to set up a democratic example in the middle east; this acts as a beacon of light for that region.
I wish Bush would have more "fireside chats" to discuss these points. Alas, that's not his style.
2. Get the budget back in order. I think - slowly - the congressional Repubs are ahead of Bush on this one.
(However, it's like asking "Who has the better offense - the 04 9ers or the 99 Browns?" It's all relative).
Republicans need to (QUICKLY!) get back to a policy of fiscal restraint. This has started with the election of Boehner as majority leader. He is trying to eliminate the "earmarks" in budget bills - those pork projects that add up and serve very little purpose as a whole.
Fiscal transparency - that's what Boehner is bringing, and what Repub. should highlight in 2006.
3. The economy. I know this may come as a shock to those who just read the NY Times, Wash Post, or LA Times, but the economy is doing well. Unemployment is lower than the mid 90s- even among minorities! Job creation is strong and steady.
It took a lot to jolt this country back economically from the 9/11 hit - the R's should take (and they deserve) a lot of credit for that. Those policies continue to be valid now - extend the tax cuts to see continued economic growth.
4) Alternatvie energy sources. We need a frank talk about this - and the R's have started the ball rolling. Where should we be in 10-20 years? Hybrid cars? Sure. Make the investments now to create the future.
5) I am scared of the last point Laura makes because - for the first time since 92 - the Democrats can actually make this case for their party. We need to make sure that the Republicans are the party of the individual. Checks and balances, transparency in budgets are all priciples that we should run on as well.
Point #5 works for the Dems if Barack Obama or Jim Kaine plays it; it will backfire if Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, or Robert Byrd plays it.
One more issue- and that is leadership. Over the last 5 years, it really has been the Republicans who have shown the leadership necessary to run the country. This is the party of recognizing problems and then proposing solutions to fix the problems in the short and long term. I didn't say that the fixes will always work - but the Republicans are not burying their head in the sand.
Compare that to the Dems:
- applauding that nothign is done on Soc Security
- raising an uproar now about the survellance program when they were notified of it when it happened in 2002!
- constantly being the party of "no", but not proposing alternatives.
It is not acceptable to have a party in power that has not demostrated any leadership or vision. The Republicans can, and should, hammer this in 2006.
Post a Comment