November 05, 2004
Take Us To Our Leader
I just sent the following email to my Democratic Senators:
Dear Senator,
Senator Harry Reid is not the person to lead the Democratic Party in the Senate.
Senator Reid is a conservative Democrat who is best known for his "conciliatory tone in the often contentious relationship between the two parties." That is not what America needs right now. The Democratic Party does not serve Americans if its leadership swings to the right. We do not need a second Republican Party.
Democrats do not need a Senate leader who will help Republican legislators dismantle Social Security, who will endanger women's lives by helping Republicans make abortion a legal issue, rather than a medical issue, and who will help Republicans advance their irresponsible fiscal policies at the expense of working families and the war on terrorism.
Democrats need a vibrant and principled leader in the Senate. We need someone who will clearly articulate our progressive, working-class agenda, who will fight fiercely for it in the face of a hostile majority, and who will create and use a bully pulpit to inspire and mobilize the tens of millions of Americans who believe that our Republican leaders are taking this country down the wrong path.
Certainly, we must rally together to fight terrorism, but we must not capitulate or waver on our principles. And even in the war on terror, we must not be afraid to speak out strongly when President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress make poor decisions or fail to make plans, as they've done too many times in the last four years.
When choosing our Senate Minority Leader, I strongly urge you not to fall back on "business as usual" criteria like seniority or the ability to get along with Republican lawmakers. Make your choice based on the ability to clearly articulate Democratic principles and goals, to energize public support for those goals, and to effectively lead the Democratic Party toward achieving those goals.
Very, very sincerely,
Lee Waggoner
If you feel the same way, you may want to pass the message along to your Democratic Senator. If you are unfortunate enough to live in a state with no Democratic representation in the Senate, just pick one.
Posted by American Pundit at November 5, 2004 06:49 AMAP,
You had a senate leader exactly as you discribe, he was targeted for defeat and voted out of office.
Do you think the next Dem. leader will be thinking about that?…Will it be a factor in selecting your next leader?
In my best,nonpartisan manner, If it were MY party, I would chose a leader from a “safe” state,
That would nulify that factor.
Lee:
Just what Democrats want is advice from Republicans. My advice would be to focus on a positive message. I would rather suggest that the leadership do what Neut did after Clinton won the Presidency. The old “contract for america”, or as Democrats say “Contract on America”. That model of congressional leadership gave the Republicans the majority. There is no reason it wouldn’t work in reverse.
I think if Democrats focus on the negative, they might stay the minority party for many years to come.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 5, 2004 12:12 PMHere is what I want to say to my democratic leaders:
Dear Senator,
On November 2, 2004 Democrats’ lives changed. We view ourselves and our values in serious trouble with the new majorities in all branches of governement. Now is not the time to be consiliatory toward the other side. Our beliefs are in serious jeopardy.
I will not stand for my representatives to continue to be pulled toward the right in order to capitulate to the demagogues that run the Republican party just to show a false sense of bi-partisanship. Democrats seem to be the only ones truely interested in putting aside squabbles for the good of the country.
I say this because it seems clear to me that while Republicans ask us to work together with them, they take no actions to show that they have any intentions of championing our ideals. I will not stand for a Democratic party that withers and dies in order to create “peace” in the hallways of congress. I see us as being in an all-out battle to protect our ways of life.
Democrats have been without a clear and disparate message that separates us from Republicans. We will not become a majority again if we continue to be “Republican-lite”. I, personally, will only continue to support my leaders in congress while they fight for the progressive principles that I live by.
Please be cautious before giving your support to a conservative, anti-abortion democrat like Senator Harry Reid.
Thank You,
Nick Wilson
Posted by: Nick at November 5, 2004 01:19 PMNick:
Not bad. I think liberals will do far better by selling the benefits of being progressive. Watching Kerry when someone asked him if he was liberal, may be a key to democratic defeat. I better answer would be, “I believe being a liberal means ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and by that definition, I am proud to be a liberal.”
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 5, 2004 01:55 PMCraig,
My sentiments exactly. I think liberals need to spend our next 4 years (at least) trying to dispel the notion that liberalism is a bad thing. We need to make it no longer a “sting” word for the republicans to use. We should stand up and explain to the world why we are proud to be liberals.
Would anyone mind putting up “why they are proud to be a liberal and not a democrat?”
It may help people see where they are mistaken on liberalism(like me) or help them see why the are correct about liberalism.
Maybe a list showing where liberals stand on each of the amendments of the Bill Of Rights?
Sounds like a good post or new topic to me.
I know I would be very interested in reading it.
If it were MY party, I would chose a leader from a “safe” state, That would nulify that factor.
Beagle, you’re exactly right about that. I didn’t mention it in the letter, but Reid is from a Republican leaning state. I’m afraid one of the reasons Reid will be chosen is for the same misguided reason Kerry chose Edwards as running mate: The idea that he will swing a state to the Democrat’s column.
“Contract on America”. That model of congressional leadership gave the Republicans the majority. There is no reason it wouldn’t work in reverse.
Thanks Craig. That’s exactly what I had in mind with the letter. Was I too subtle?
Nick, I hope you sent that letter off. BTW, I’m not convinced that liberal values are the problem. Most people, Dems and Reps are pretty moderate on social issues, differing mostly on the solutions.
For example, neither Dems nor Reps want people to decide on having an abortion. We differ on whether it should be regulated by law, or whether it should be treated as a social, psychological, and medical issue.
Neither Dems nor Reps want irresponsible teenagers having sex. We differ on whether abstinance teaching is more effective than birth control.
And finally, kctim, Dems are not against the 2nd amendment. I’m a gun owner myself.
American Pundit / Nick,
Thank you for taking the lead on this issue.
I would ask that each and every Dem follow the lead of these two. The offices of the Democratic Senators should be filled with just such letters.
Please / Please do not let the party move toward the Republicans.
If the Democratic leadership will only listen and follow through with these suggestions, they will make it even easier for us on the right to pick up even more seats during the next election.
In case you had not noticed, the Democratic party has lost seats in Congress for the past 5 election cycles. Obviously the positions taken by the Democratic party do not resonate with the electorate.
Your idea is so good that I plan to send these letters to my Democratic Sena, oh wait a minute. I am lucky enough to live in a state without any Democratic Senators. But, as I said your idea is so good I’m going to send them to all your Democratic Senators.
Now that the human roadblock Tom Daschle is gone, maybe we can send Teddy or Hillary packing with the next election.
Posted by: Kirk at November 5, 2004 11:05 PMKirk, you are the enbodiement of the arogant flatulence of the neo-cons. Give us all a break and go to bed.
Rocky, you have violated our Critique the Message, not the Messenger policy. Your access to comment on WatchBlog has been removed. — WatchBlog Manager
Posted by: Rocky at November 6, 2004 01:56 AMAP,
Thank you for acknowledging that my advice had nothing to do with party politics, but rather political engineering.
For those that didn’t understand my comment ;
If you pick a party leader from a state that leans to the other side of the isle, they HAVE to moderate their positions or they will be targeted by the other side and voted out of office.
It doesn’t matter which side it is, and if they are moderate to start with, they might “jump ship” and switch partys.( They ALL want to stay in office). Pick anyone you want, I was only pointing out political fact.
A tip for everyone on ALL sides ;
When someone reaches across the isle, check to see if its an open hand, or a fist, before you slap it away.
Respectfully, Beagle
Posted by: Beagle at November 6, 2004 01:10 PMAP,
Maybe the reason most of us who voyed for Kerry are still mad is because of remarks like Kirks’. While I am normally a peaceful person, the idea of helping my fellow red country men and women elodes me right now.
However, do not worry to much about these mislead people who have been brainwashed by years of listening to Rush and Hannity. Just once I would love to get Rush and Hannity in a real debate on the issues with factcheck.org(not .com as their leader believes) as mediator. But I don’t think that either man has the courage to take me on based solely on the facts and holding to the standard of truth and honor which makes Americans the best people in the world.
No, instead I think we need to have them, the media outlets, and advertisers charged with hate crimes. Insighting their followers to attack the “Liberals” has to be against the law congress passed under Newt. For if I walk into a jewish church and start telling them to raise up against the christians is that not inciting hate?
Keep the faith and check out the latest news about the electronic voting machines that will bring a smile to your face.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 7, 2004 07:00 AMBut who will be your leader in 2008?
Put in your 2 cents at www.Primary2008.com
Posted by: Frank Myers at November 7, 2004 03:34 PMAP
“kctim, Dems are not against the 2nd amendment. I’m a gun owner myself.”
- I do believe the DEMS are not against the 2nd Amendment. It is the liberals that are against it. Registration and outright bans of weapons are wrong. I know where liberals stand when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
Obviously, nobody wants to touch on what true liberalism is.
I believe most are truly DEMS who only support their liberal candidates just because of what they THINK the other side believes.
Posted by: kctim at November 8, 2004 12:34 PMHenry,
You can take my statements as you wish. But, as the old saying goes; those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.
The left has continued to loose seats in Congress for the past decade. I think that the Democratic party had better take a hard look at the US electorate and the way the have been voting. If the party continues to put up the very liberal candidates they will continue to loose more elections and influence.
The US electorate as a whole is becoming more and more conservative. Just take a look at the south which about 15 years ago was considered Democratic safe ground. The Democratic to Republican Senatorial count was about 4:1 Democrat. Following this election that ratio has done a complete 180 and is now about 4:1 Republican. In fact Lousiana elected a Republican Senator for the first time since the Civil War with over 50% of the vote.
If the Democratic party continues to ignore these trends and moves even farther to the left as suggested by the first couple of posts in this thread then us on the right will have even more to cheer about.
Posted by: Kirk at November 8, 2004 01:31 PMI believe most are truly DEMS who only support their liberal candidates just because of what they THINK the other side believes.
kctim, I think I know what you’re getting at here. Two things I want to point out: Michael Moore wasn’t running for office - certainly not as a Democrat - and Wellstone is dead, so I’m not sure which “liberal candidates” you’re talking about.
Second, I can easily turn your statement around and say, “REPS only support their fringe-right candidates because of what they THINK the other side believes.” There were plenty of conservatives who only voted for Bush because they bought into the GOP mischaracterizations of Kerry.
Either way. It’s obvious now, unless you want to count Pelosi, the Democratic Party is without a strong leader. Senator Reid’s not the guy for the job. Passing him the leadership position based on seniority shows our leaders’ lack of vision and will.
I’d love to see some Senate Democrat with fire in his/her belly using elbows, knees, and teeth to and rip the Minority Leader position out of Daschle’s cold, politically dead hands.
I want to see a checklist of Democratic goals. I want to see a Democratic “Contract With America”, and I want to see a plan for acheiving those goals.
I don’t think we need to spend time and money responding to the GOP version of Johnson’s “Pig Effer” attacks. As long as there are only two viable parties, there’s no danger of us going away. We need to clearly articulate our values and goals - or at least the set of goals on which our hyper-inclusive party can agree - and focus on acheiving them.
And they should be acheivable goals. For example, we need to switch from a petroleum to a hydrogen energy economy. The Islamists have upped the ante, and unless we’re going to occupy and subjugate the entire Middle East, buying oil from our enemies is no longer a luxury we can afford. The change is going to be expensive and will probably involve subsidies for the auto and petroleum industries - perhaps even cutting a deal letting them drill in the ANWR - but in return we legislate the switch within 10 years.
If that pisses off the environmental fringe of the party, too bad. If we don’t compromise we’ll never acheive the goal.
What I’m getting at, is that passing the Dem’s Senate leadership to Reid is a sign that the Democratic Party still does not accept that it’s the minority party. Now is not the time for “buiness as usual.” Now is the time for bold action. Hammering out a coherent, progressive agenda will be tough. Invariably, some on the fringe will get ticked off. It’s going to take a strong leader to pull it off. Senator Reid isn’t the guy. Write your Democratic Senators and tell them so.
Yikes! Sorry about the length of this post. :)
AP
I can easily turn your statement around and say, “REPS only support their fringe-right candidates because of what they THINK the other side believes.”
Yes you could, and you are 100% correct in saying that.
Moore is an idiot and should move to canada.
Pelosi? Only if the left does not desire to get any moderates vote.
A person such as Ike Skelton would be the ideal DEMOCRAT to run as president, get more votes from those of us in the middle and be able to win.
Posted by: kctim at November 9, 2004 10:55 AMA person such as Ike Skelton would be the ideal DEMOCRAT to run as president
Except he has the same problem as Reid. He’s from a Republican state and he’s a zillion years old. Look at this guy. He’s not going to inspire America.
On the other hand, he is the kind of conservative we like in the Democratic Party - just not as its leader. Guys like him keep the far left honest. :)
I’m thinking of someone younger… more like Tim Ryan, maybe. :)
AP
LOL! I agree, he is old. I was trying to say, someone like him would be more compatiable with us in the middle.
I will check out Ryan though, see what I think and if he is someone I could support.
I know there are real democrats out there, they just need to be heard on a national level. But I would like to ask your opinion on something.
“Would you think it is fair to say that much of the heat that liberals get, could be because of some of the far left special interest groups and the things they do, especially when it concerns individual rights?”
(PETA, greenpeace, anti-gun, smoking, eating, driving etc…)
Maybe people always see these liberal groups in the news and automatically associate all liberals (unfairly?) with these views.
Remember, I’m talking about FAR LEFT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS and not tossing all liberals into this question.
(And yes, I am aware that I am guilty of doing just that when viewing all liberals. LOL)
