Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Bert:

It looks like Democrats are fairing no better!!

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=239

Craig

Bert:

One of the craziest things about the last few years is how little the Democrats have been able to turn negative events into popularity for their party. You would think for instance that with what you just mentioned that Democrats would be in great shape looking forward into 2006, but the I don’t see these events tranlating into popularity of the Democratic party.

The same thing was true last year with the Kerry campaign. Wow the press was so negative about Bush, and yet Kerry couldn’t change enough votes.

My own guess is that Democrats don’t have the right combo of leadership skills in place yet. Dean is a great leader from a Republican perspective because his followers are so far out of the mainstream. Until there is a clear and moderate and reasonable democratic voice from a “red” state, I think the Democrats might continue to flounder even with Republican screw ups.

Craig

Craig,

“I think the Democrats might continue to flounder even with Republican screw ups.”

Hey, they can dream can’t they?

My own guess is that Democrats don’t have the right combo of leadership skills in place yet. Dean is a great leader from a Republican perspective because his followers are so far out of the mainstream. Until there is a clear and moderate and reasonable democratic voice from a “red” state, I think the Democrats might continue to flounder even with Republican screw ups.

I’m hearing this kind of argument so much from the Right lately Craig, I think it’s time to give it a name. It’s like Fantasy Political Operative League-speak or Rovian handicapping for Conservatives. It’s like, if Lee Atwater ran a sorta sports book for politics. The only problem is, you guys are trying to pick this season’s winners, but without this season’s stats!

Your argument also reflects a popular status quo attitude on the Right. A reading of the current political pulse that makes you exploit a family’s personal tragedy, threaten judges and defend Tom DeLay.

Obviously, you did not look at the polling link I provided, because on almost every issue polled, most Americans preferred the Democrats over the Republicans. Voters are taking a sobering look at the major issues that they are facing, and they’re angered by the indifference and ineptness of your party and President.

It is also interesting, that you framed your argument in terms of elections, which is probably the only time right now it would be plausible. Because, then you’d have as scapegoats, the Democrats and a John Kerry with which to distract the voters from the administration’s failures, while throwing in some wedge issues and scare tactics.

However, Bush and the GOP are operating exposed and transparent right now, and the 2006 Mid-Terms are still 11 months away.

I don’t understand the filibuster and I can’t find anything that explains it to me.

The first time I heard the word (like many people) was when I saw Mr. Smith goes to Washington. One guy could talk as long as he could talk. That is also what I read in the senate.gov etc about filibusters.

If that is still the way it is, who cares. I don’t believe Teddy Kennedy or Chris Dodd could stand on their feet for more than a couple of hours. Even if they take turns, after awhile it will get really old, even for the C-span audiences.

So why don’t we let them talk, if that is what they want to do. It would amount to a government shutdown and we all recall how successful that kind of thing was when the Republicans tried it back in the 1990s.

Imagine looking at red faced Teddy for a couple of days. We wouldn’t need a nuclear option. The old fat boy would probably just drop dead right there.

Ha! Great article and come back post, Bert!
I just love it when you’re spot-on with a topic while getting sassy at the same time!

Even as a Democrat, I still think that is wishful thinking. See those gun carrying, so-called “Christians” love their guns and war. In the eyes of the rednecks, from states that are in the middle of nowhere, they can do no wrong when it comes to this. They also seem to think that stoppng any logical voices from “liberal, hippie, gay/N-word lover” is a great thing.

Also, creeps like Santorum seem to be so popular these days just because he is campaigning as a “Christian.” I’m sure we will also be seeing more scare tactics that these liars are so so good at as well. They have too many people brainwashed. We need help.

If the Democrats play the next elections right, we could see the Republican party lose its majorities in at least one of the chambers of the legislature, and perhaps even the White House in ‘08. The Republicans have gained too much ground too fast. To grow so aggressively, they’ve had to straddle the divide between the far right and the centrists, taking up both their interests, to mixed, and sometimes disastrous results.

Additionally, their leaders got too drunk on power too soon, elevating the people who rallied support, not necessarily the folks who could get things done on a practical basis.

Too much of what the Conservatives do nowadays is about wish-fulfillment. They not only use their power in a way that others resent, they make sport of the fact that people resent their uses of power. Thus, with their arrogance, they unify the opposition, and splinter those from the party who find their party’s actions distasteful.

It would have been better for the Republicans to have matured into their power, for them to have gradually brought Americans into the conservative fold for the generation to come, rather than fight an apocalyptic culture war against their fellow Americans. Sowing discord, they have reaped the whirlwind.

Michael

There are some stereotypes you might avoid. When you say that ?They also seem to think that stopping any logical voices from “liberal, hippie, gay/N-word lover”

I have many Republican friends and I vote Republican. Among us, liberal is used as a pejorative. The only place I hear anyone using ?hippie? is when democrats describe themselves. People think much less about gays than you guys think and I haven?t heard anyone use the N-word in more than twenty years, except on television ? and then it is usually black comedians.

Not all Republicans own guns and nobody loves war.

I will say again, that I perceive more vitriol from the left than the right. Conservative speakers are regularly assaulted on university campuses. Throwing a pie or a can of salad dressing might not sound like much, but imagine the outcry if the shoe was on the other foot.

Howard Dean says he hates Republicans and all they stand for. That is his business. But why don’t moderate Dems condemn his intemperate comments.

Look at some of the comments in this blog for other examples.

Michael,
Rick Santorum will surely lose in 2006 against Robert Casey Jr. He is wildly popular and Santorum is one of those types of politicians who do more alienating than bringing together.

Jack,
I understand your comments but generalizing liberals because one person generalizing conservatives is not the solution. I know your point and I understand your position. I am glad that you are a moderate as opposed to just being a petty partisan person. This is what this country should go on as critical thinking on choosing candidates over political party.

Bert,
Good article and I like our chances in 2006 because the seats that we can get for the senate are fairly vulnerable in my opinion.

Bert:

Well, I do have polling data on my side. I just don’t see much change since November on congressional preferences.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/generic_vote.html

Basically, nationally voters “prefer” Democrats by a small margin, but then of course “prefer” their own congressperson.

I know hope springs eternal, but wow with the right direction, wrong direction numbers, it seems very strange that the out party is not gaining more than it is.

Craig

I will find it very interest if Casey does defeat Santorum. You will have two of the most prominent Democrats in the Senate being pro-life (Casey and Reid). Just 12 years ago the Dems. refused to allow Casey’s father to talk at their convention because he did not believe in abortion- how far things have come with electoral defeates of the last 10 years… If the Democratic Party is really willing to go in this direction, I think it can do a lot to make a comeback in national politics, however.

The Republicans have a very good Spin Machine. Remember that even with both the Weapons Inspectors and Congress declaring that Saddam had no WMDs, 40% of Americans still believed Iraq had them. Its hard to fight that kind of brainwash.

Craig:

“Basically, nationally voters “prefer” Democrats by a small margin, but then of course “prefer” their own congressperson.

I know hope springs eternal, but wow with the right direction, wrong direction numbers, it seems very strange that the out party is not gaining more than it is.”

I agree and offer this possible explanation from a “neutral, independent” viewpoint. I watched the past election closely, like all of us on this site. I saw the vitriol from both sides, heard the many time ridiculous ads, the fantastic rhetoric. What I noticed was, when the conservatives would take a stance that could be exploited, the Dems spouted specific, effective arguements against the conservative stance, and were quite clear and understandable, though not always supported by facts. What the Dems did not do effectively was to offer a valid, well spoken, unified alternative.

People can and do actually look past the rhetoric if the alternative is intelligently put together in a unified manner.

Bert,

I have to agree with Craig. It’s sickening to see the Dems unable to organize and take advantage of one Republican lie and screw up after another. So many opportunities after another and they have yet devised a plan or process for turning those things against the Republicans. I’m a life long Democrat but it seems to me the only answer by the Dems is to ask their membership for more money. Sometimes it seems as though I’m just shoveling money down a rat hole. The late Will Rogers (American Humorist) once said, “I don’t belong to any organized politcal party, I’m a Democrat.” That was said in the 1920’s. Looks like the same old story today. The apparent Democrat policy of turn the other cheek might get them into heaven but it won’t get them into the white house.

Great link here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43180-2005Apr11.html
I do apologize if someone else posted this. I think I clicked on someone’s link and found another link inside that page. Either way, this should scare the bejesus out of the Republicans. Get ready to lose some seats in 2006 because a lot of these seats are super vulnerable.

I don’t think we need more charismatic politicians leading us in overwhelming revolutions. I’d settle for a quiet decline on the part of Republican power over the next ten years, perhaps punctuated by substantial slippages in certain elected positions. I’d settle for the Democrats gradually reclaiming their leadership of our government

Why? Because I don’t want the kind of victory that the Republicans themselves have attained. They made the party rigidly ideological, belligerently confrontational, and all too vulnerable to special interest influence in exchange for support from those interests.

I don’t even prefer a permanent Democratic Majority. I’d just as soon see power shift back and forth according to the competence of the officeholders.

Does anyone have a link that lists “red state Democrats” and “blue state Republicans” that will be running for re-election in 2006 ?

I think I’d base a prediction of the next congress more on that that a poll taken today.

Donny, thanks for the url — Terry Neal’s ‘Talking Points’ articles are usually very good reading. I’m going to put up a direct link to your article so that even the lazy will have the chance to go right to it.

I think it is pretty amazing that:
“Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president at this point in his second term, according to Gallup polls going back to World War II.”

I also thought that this was interesting:
“The Republican triumph of 2004 was less about the electorate’s overwhelming love for the Bush agenda than it was about the failure of Kerry and the Democrats to present an enticing and viable alternative and a cohesive vision for the future.”

Those words “cohesive vision” I agree with completely, perhaps because I myself left the party after the last election because of their inability to stand together and send a solid message about desperately needed election reform — an issue of completely obvious and clear cut voter disenfranchisement. And one which you’d think would be high on every Dem on the Hill’s priority list since it actually affects them personally and directly!
Their continuing tendency not to stand together on other important issues since that time — especially issues such as the bankruptcy bill, truly signal an increasing retreat from the Democratic Party’s historical position of working hard for “the little guy”.
I was very hopeful when Howard Dean (a no nonsense social liberal, and fiscal conservative) came in — because I really thought that Dems could win an overwhelming majority back to their side (even me!), if they could just quit acting like confused fools and once again became a solid voice and voting block intent on protecting the best interests of the average American. But as of yet, not even Dean has been able to help them unify their voices or solidify their votes, around such a message.

Forget about all the “wedge and cultural issues” that the Republican’s keep using to whip up everyones emotions and separate people from their own best interests, and think for a moment — what else could be more “enticing and viable” to the majority of American voters than feeling like they had a no-nonsense, no bullshit TEAM working soley for the average and lesser end of our increasingly widening economic divide?

That was always the winning ticket for Democrats in the past, my friends, and it could be again, if they could just get their act together.

It’s more about who controls the message. Unfortunately, your average American is not inclined to seek news outside his TV screen or daily newspaper. As long as the media is controlled by the reichwing few, all that these redneck/red state Americans will know is what they’re spoonfed by the likes of Fox and all the other “liberal” fourth estaters. So long as the ultraconservatives control the message, this nation will remain ignorant and continue to vote against its own self-interests.

Then there’s also that issue of just WHO gets to count the votes and WHO gets to say who’s allowed to vote… Til the media and the voting mechanism is cleaned up, it will matter little what the Dems do or whom they run.

Jack,

Your position on conservative speakers being assaulted on college campuses seems like small potatoes when MAJOR right wing talk show hosts spew hate about liberals over public airwaves daily and people like Sean Hannity can be accepted titling his book “Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism - Deliver us from evil”. Which directly compares liberals to Terrorist (Osama Bin Laden) and Despots (Saddam Hussein). I will admit that I didn’t read the book but the title alone was enough to put me off.

I would like to be enlightened by more moderate conservatives as you but am having trouble finding too many of them these days.

What part of the new republican platform do you exactly agree with. Their new platform seems to be about nothing but social control and power. Gone are the days of individual rights and fiscal responsibility. Also remember that right wing christian morality does not fit everybody.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Donny, Bert Adrienne etc:

My point is not that Bush is doing great in the polls. MY POINT is that inspite of the link you provided, Democrats do not seem to have profited. Congressional Democrats are scoring as low or lower than Bush right now. That is the part that is crazy to me.

Let me put the link I was looking at again. It basically shows everyone going down the same drain.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=239

Look at the trendline on how satisfied DEMOCRATS are in their own leadership. How can a party regain a majority with so many dissatisfied members?? Only 56% of DEMOCRATS are satisfied. If Democratic leadership can only convince 56% of their own party that they know what they are doing, how in the world do they expect to convince 51% of the whole electoriate?

I am not trying to be overly partison here. I am just saying that in terms of whose future looks the brightest right now, as a Republican I am not worried. If for no other reason, Republicans appear to be unified, and Democrats appear to be heading for a big interal fight over the direction of your party.

Craig

While I am on a role.

Why would Democrats elect someone who attracts white, wealthy, secular, highly educated liberals if they want to be a majority party??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32379-2005Apr6.html?nav=rss_politics

Dean attracted an activist corps that is whiter, wealthier, better educated and far more liberal and secular than Democrats generally or the population at large, according to the Pew Research Center.

After an election where the map looked like this??

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Look at the map and then tell me how affluent, white, well educated liberals are going to change red’s into blues.

The strategy should have been to get a successful Democrat from a red state to lead the party.

That is why I am not worried about Hillary in 2008. If she were the Senator from Ohio or Florida, I think she would have a shot at the presidency.

Craig

Craig,

While I’m at it. What part of the new republican platform appeals to you or are you mearly interested in baseball scores.

Do you think perhaps that the poll which shows less faith in Democratic Leadership leans towards how they deal with republicans. Democrats in general would not use a swift boat attack on republicans even those such as Tom Delay because I think in general liberals aka democrats are not that mean spirited. This may be an over-generalization but many people are calling for the dems to go in attack mode and use the same successful tactics that have worked for republicans lately. Instead like John Kerry have opted for the high rode and arguably looked weak.

The question is how do liberals defend themselves without stooping to the levels of the republicans and win elections. It appears to be cultural and not easily attainable.

Reed:

While I’m at it. What part of the new republican platform appeals to you or are you mearly interested in baseball scores.

Do you think perhaps that the poll which shows less faith in Democratic Leadership leans towards how they deal with republicans.

First of all I don’t accept your premise that somehow Republicans are meaner than Democrats. I think there is plenty of meaness to go around. I would not put Michael Moore in the category of “nice”. Nor do I approve of his tactics.

I personally think it is a vision thing. I have no idea of what the liberal vision of America is. I used to know. For instance, Bush has brought up the issue of Social Security. Both sides are wrong on this one. It is not a crisis as Bush would tell us, but is also is a problem that needs to be dealt with, of which Democrats seem to be in denial.

Here is an example of what I think the Democratic LEADERSHIP should be saying. Something like this:

Social Security is not in crisis. It is however a problem that needs to be addressed. It is not possible nor do we believe prudent to “solve this issue for all time” because quite frankly projections and circumstances change as we go through the years. Although we thank President Bush for raising the issue of Social Security, we disagree with his proposal and believe private accounts are too risky. We are however for strengthening Social Security in the following ways:

1. Raise the limit on Social Security taxes on wealthier Americans to $100,000, and add a 1% social security tax on incomes over $100,000.

2. Middle Income and wealthier Americans depend less on Social Security than lower wage earners. We support changing the formula for wage earners over $50,000 (pick a number) so that their benefits will grow slower than wage earners who earn under $50,000.

3. Look at Immigration laws so that they favor younger workers. We need to target younger workers will be in their peak earning years when baby boomers are fully retired.

We also welcome and are willing to consider other modest measure that will strengthen Social Security in the future.

In the end we believe our proposals could add 10 to 15 years of solvancy to the Social Security Trust Fund. You can rest assured that the Democratic Party will always be willing to to support reasonable proposals that will keep Social Security a vital force not just for you but for your children and grandchilden as well.

You may agree or disagree on specific points. But the Democrats should own this issue. Just being for stopping Bush is second class. That is reactionary instead of being proactive. It is being in reactive mode instead of proactive mode that I think is the reason why Democrats are not happy with their leadership.

Craig

Craig,
In case you didn’t watch, “Bowling for Columbine”, I think Michael Moore bashed Bill Clinton enough to make him more of a Socialist than a Democrat.

Here is an example of what I think the Democratic LEADERSHIP should be saying

Craig, Democratic leaders are saying that. I can’t understand why the conservative media isn’t picking it up. Here’s the Democrat’s LEADER, Senator Reid, talking about it,

“For 70 years, Social Security has been a remarkable success. If not for the program, about 50 percent of seniors would be living in poverty. Instead, that figure is less than 10 percent.

“Social Security, however, does face long term challenges. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will be able to pay only 80 percent of promised benefits starting in about 50 years. That’s far from a crisis, but it is a problem that should be addressed. Like most Democrats, I want to work with the President to strengthen and improve Social Security. However, I want to make sure we do it right.

“Unfortunately, the White House’s privatization plan would only make matters worse.

You say, “Both sides are wrong on this one,” but really only one side is wrong, and you’ve never heard the other side.

At this point, no one - neither the President, Republicans, or Democrats - are advancing a plan to deal with Social Security’s solvency problem.

Craig,

Here is an example of what I think the Democratic LEADERSHIP should be saying

I would love for any side to be saying these things. I agree wholeheartedly with you that Democrats should own this issue instead of just being anti-Bush. It looks like the people know the right answer for social security (raise the limit on social security taxes) but it looks like politics are getting in the way.

Craig,

Re: Hillary, I think she has a great chance at pulling enough midwest soccer moms with underachieving children as any biblethumper the GOP can hurl out. Possibly enough to win the election. I don’t think any blue state will vote GOP next election. Even Al Sharpton would win most of them.

Social Security should be income blind. It should not be taxed progressively nor should it be distributed regressively. What you pay in should be what you get out. The only exception I might make is, perhaps, defining a maximum benefit but limiting deductions out of proportion to the payout limits.

Reed:
Politics getting in the way of a solution? Now really…

As far as privatization, we all know how great a job the President is doing selling his Social Security plan, don’t we?

President Bush Quote: Tampa Florida 2/04/05

American Pundit:

So what is Senator Reid’s proposal?? What is he for? I know what he is against, I just don’t know what he is for other than “strengthening social security”.

Craig

Dave:

Social Security should be income blind. It should not be taxed progressively nor should it be distributed regressively. What you pay in should be what you get out. The only exception I might make is, perhaps, defining a maximum benefit but limiting deductions out of proportion to the payout limits.

My point was that I do not know what the Democrat leaderships position is.

Craig

True Blue wrote:

I have to agree with Craig. It’s sickening to see the Dems unable to organize and take advantage of one Republican lie and screw up after another. So many opportunities after another and they have yet devised a plan or process for turning those things against the Republicans.

I hear this (and share) this kind of frustration a lot TB, but it comes from the assumption that there is a leveled playing field among public discourse and the media in this country - nothing can be further from the truth!

I have argued in many of my WB posts on the news media, that broadcast TV network and cable news is being driven more by what is becoming the singular makeup of its audience. Many, if not most Liberals with an Internet connection, have abandoned broadcast MSM, leaving the cable outlets to pander to a mainly Fox News audience. IMHO, coverage of the Atlanta Courthouse murders to the 24/7 Pope fest by the three cable outlets, speak volumes to my assertion. But, no matter how much truth and credible facts can be found in newspapers and online, big stories are still driven by TV news and the cable networks, who play fast, loose, slanted or omitted, with the truth.

My point is not that Bush is doing great in the polls. MY POINT is that in spite of the link you provided, Democrats do not seem to have profited. Congressional Democrats are scoring as low or lower than Bush right now. That is the part that is crazy to me.

Are we in the middle of an election campaign Craig? No. Only then, would or should the Democrats be concerning themselves with benefiting from Bush and the GOP’s sliding approvals. Only then, would American voters then be considering the positions of the Democrats, and then be asked by pollsters about it.

This is the only plausible way you can frame a discussion of Bush’s falling approvals, because you cannot defend the failures that have led to them. My post deals nothing with elections and the Democrats, but you’ve managed to hijack the thread topic, having your own agenda.

Bert:

This is the only plausible way you can frame a discussion of Bush’s falling approvals, because you cannot defend the failures that have led to them. My post deals nothing with elections and the Democrats, but you’ve managed to hijack the thread topic, having your own agenda.

I can see why you would think that. I don’t understand the relavance of discussing Bush’s falling approvals if democratic leadership’s approvals are falling at the same time. It is sorta the pot calling the kettle black.

Craig

So what is Senator Reid’s proposal?? What is he for? I know what he is against, I just don’t know what he is for other than “strengthening social security”.

Heh. The way you frame that question makes it sound like Bush has offered a proposal for strengthening Social Security. He has not. Both Reid’s and Bush’s positions are, all options are on the table.

Here’s the problem. Both Reps and Dems know SS is the third rail. Bush came out with the wacko private accounts trojan horse to force Dems into offering a proposal.

Any serious plan to strengthen SS will involve either benefit cuts or raising taxes, so no one on either side has touched it so far.

Bush has the perception upper hand because he’s got some people thinking the private accounts are a solution. They are not, and the Bush administration has quietly admitted it.

But because they have the momentum gained by addressing it, people are expecting the Dems to make a counter proposal to Bush’s non-existent “plan”. And every serious proposal - even doing nothing about a problem 50 years in the future - is a bomb. Raise taxes? Looks bad. Cut benefits? Bad again. Wait another 20 years before addressing it? Still bad.

There’s some excellent public opinion manipulation going on here by the White House, Craig. By asking what the Dems position is, it sounds like you bought into it.

All politics aside, It just makes more sense to wait another 20 years and see how it looks then. Back in the 90s, SS was going to hit hard times in 2032. Now it’s 2052. I’m predicting for 2072 by the end of this decade. ;)

American Pundit:

There’s some excellent public opinion manipulation going on here by the White House, Craig. By asking what the Dems position is, it sounds like you bought into it.

Actually since Bush’s position can be characterized as extreme, and Democrats should own this issue, I think they should come in as “the voice of moderation” with a sensible approach that will extend solvancy for another decade or so. There is a wide open door to appear to be the moderate sensible party. I am wondering why Democrats haven’t walked through it.

In terms of the “tit for tat” “cotcha” “cat and mouse” game, I think that puts both parties on the same level. If Democrats want to be seen as leaders on this issue, (And they should!!!), I think they should rise above it and lead. If they do it, and do it well, I think they will be rewarded on 06.

Craig

I think they should come in as “the voice of moderation” with a sensible approach

Like I said. Any real proposal is going to involve cutting benefits or raising taxes on a potential problem projected fifty years down the road.

In that amount of time, it’s possible that an asteroid will destroy civilization and render the whole question moot.

I think Democrats are doing the right thing. Let’s come back to it in about twenty years. At that point, we’ll still have another thirty years for a fix - if it’s even necessary. As boring as that sounds, I think that’s the right moderate response.