Feb 19, 2006
What the Dems Need
Interesting article in the Washington Post Outlook section. With all of the material the Republicans have given them, what have the Dems done with it? The war planning (or lack thereof, depending on your viewpoint), Abu Ghraib, Jack Abramoff, Social Security, budget deficits, Harriet Miers, the size of gov't, pork barrel spending, etc. Speaks to the ineptitude of the Dems and overall lack of leadership in the party in general, in my opinion. The article attributes it more to the overall leadership "style" of Pelosi et al.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The Dems will make great gains in the elections (in 06 or 08) when they can answer this question:
Please tell me what the Democrats stand FOR in 30 words or less.
This is what Newt was able to do with the Republicans in 94 . The answer was:
"Lower Taxes, Term limits, and a balanced budget", i.e. the Contract for America.
Once the Democrats can align on a concise and pithy platform, then the GOP (and I) will be scared.
But any party that insists on eating their own (see the primary challenge to Joe Lieberman) tells me they have no idea what they want to accomplish yet.
Oh, and answer the 30-word question without using the word "Bush". I'm serious.
It pains me to say this, but Eric is SO right. The Dems have NO leadership and are completely lost in the woods. (Hillary, please don't run, you'll get crushed)
Example #1 - Bush is trampling all over our civil rights with the domestic wire tapping program, has admitted he is doing it, and the Dems stand around and look at each other dum-founded.
What ever happened to Live Free or Die?
If the Dems HAD any leadership they could turn this entire affair against the Reps without ever mentioning Bush. But they haven't a clue.
Gees, Laura, do you not learn anything from past elections?
Most of these same issues existed in 2004 (except for Abramoff and Katrina), and yet Bush won. Why?
Why? Have you ever asked yourself that? Instead of blaming Bush, have you tried to ask yourself why he won?
It's because the Democrats offered no alternative. Look at Kerry, Mr. "I voted for it before I voted against it". For it, against it, whatever - what does he stand for? Pick one, please!
It has never been enough to complain and point out faults. What is the other party's solutions?
That's why Kerry lost. Are the Democrats determined to fail again the same way in 2006?
Here we go.
1) I will let the Florida reference go from 2000 - but I can't believe you think that Bush stole the election in 2004 in Ohio.
How much did Bush win Ohio by? 0.5% ? 1% No - it was 2.1%. There were 4 other states with smaller margins - 2 of those were won by Bush, 2 won by Kerry. Look at Wisconsin - there was a lot of vote fraud claims thrown out there; Kerry wins by 11,000 votes, or 0.4%. Yep, all those phantom irregualarities throw the close states to Bush...
2) Your second point about wedge issues tell me you don't understand a large swath of the American public. For many, many people, their faith is the number one influence in their life. Not "financial" concerns, but their relationship with God. That is of utmost importance to them.
I'm not going to judge them and say they are "right" or "wrong" - but it's a value call that every person makes. The Democrats, time and time again, have completely ignored and/or scoffed at this bloc. That's why states like West Virginia, North Dakota, and Idaho have turned Red (Republican) in federal elections.
I hate to play the diversity card, but maybe you need to spend some time in the midwest/south to understand that these folks think that the choices they make are in their best interest for their family and the nation.
3) You can't be serious about the democrats and the "best" candidate.
Let's see... in 2002, who were the candidates for governor in Maryland?
Robert Ehrlich (R) vs.
Kathleen Townsend (D).
All analysts agree that Townsend came from a disgraced administration (Glendenning's) and was a horrible campaigner.
So why was she nominated?
Oh, did I forget to mention that her middle name was "Kennedy" and she is related to the Kennedys?
So don't give me that example.
I'm not sure what your definition of "best" is, but Bill Clinton certainly was overmatched intellectually by Paul Tsongas and Paul Simon in 1992. And what about last year? Joe Lieberman gets less support that Dennis Kucinich?
And you want to lecture Republicans about putting out the "best" candidate?
In all seriousness, I think you - and the Democratic party - needs to define what their goals are. What is the purpose of the party?
To run on prinicples or to win elections?
This is not a sarcastic question. The two purposes come in conflict many times.
Your answer to that may also help to explain the minority status of the party.
Good topics in here:
1) I'm glad you had the foresight to know beforehand which states are deemed important and unimportant. I - and many analyzers - didn't! Let me know in 08 which states are important so I can move there, OK?
3) (Let's jump to #3 next). I'm not just selecting one example - I gave you 3 examples. You only responded to one. I guess when you object to "cherry picking", you mean to think that he/she isn't the "best" candidate out there.
By that same definition, I can't figure out a way how you think Clinton was the "best" candidate in 92, or how Lieberman finished last in 04.
I think - seriously - that you are a bit jealous that the Republicans are getting well known figures to run. Well, go ahead! Go nominate a Baldwin then!
It's NOT obvious what the goals or platform is of the democratic party. Don't just ask me - ask Leland, or Don! You don't know Don, but he is an independent/leaning D who voted for Kerry. And his wife - how do I put this? - was placed out of work due to Enron/Arthur Anderson and now she is the most virulent anti-Bush person I have met.
So those aren't Republican plants I brought into the blog! My question I posted in the first comment still stands - what are the Democrats for? Are they interested in winning or stading on priniciples?
2) (now, the more intellectual part of the comment) You are half right. You will not get an argument from me that sometimes the "religious" stances of the party is in direct contrast to the principle of small government. Gay marriage is a great example - why is the party involved in this issue?
(I'm not so sure about abortion - Roe v Wade, in effect, made law - forcing all 50 states to legalize abortion, so being anti-Roe doesn't seem to clash with the small government stance on a second look.)
Anyway, I do believe that down the road (as soon as 2008?) the party will be fractured / have a healthy debate (pick one) on its future. Is it a frugality party? Individual/states' rights? Morality? Right now, those forces have all come together over the past 10-20 years; it is conceivable that they come apart in the future.
Why have they come together? Long story - it's not a coincidence; the book I'm reading ("The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America") is trying to outline this. However, ESPN gets in the way of my reading time.
I do have a problem with your cheap shot, however, on republican policies. You state that the R agenda "which 99% of the time is in direct conflict with traditional Christian values (caring for the poor, taking care of god's green earth, forgiveness, peace, etc.)."
You don't honestly believe that, do you? Here are two examples:
1. Welfare reform. How did that work out? Pretty well, by all standards. At the time, it was called mean-spiritied, at best.
2. Cold War. Oh God, Nukes! It's the end of civilization! Strength brought peace and the fall of the Soviet Union.
Those are two examples of how the R agenda may seem like it's in conflict with the ideals of Christianity, but it's not.
On the flip side, we have the Great Society. Good ideals, but in practice, it has been a documented disaster for some low income families ("the cycle of dependency").
Post a Comment