January 27, 2005
Some Real Advice For The Democrats
I guess it is somewhere in between courtesy and boastfulness for the Republicans to make suggestions on how to win elections. After all, they are sweeping through everything. It needs to be known though that what started with Reagan and his new breed of Republicans can start right now too with the Democrats.
The answer so far from the Republicans is to throw out the so called “radical factions” within the Democratic party. They give the advice to get rid of the far left “obstructionists” and to move more moderate. This makes me snicker.
It’s funny for them to suggest such a thing when a “radical faction” has already taken over the Republican Party. There is no debating this. In the last twenty-five years the Christian Right has worked its way up the ladder until now it has a figurehead, George W. Bush, in the highest U.S. office. Such is the nature of American political parties though.
The Republican Party has exemplified organization and political foundations for the last ten years. It isn’t the policy or the morals that get them their vote. It is not their spite for abortion, or their affinity towards anti-homosexual legislation. It is their steadfast platform and their network of ties to the Christian Right which now still brings the richest voters, but as a bonus snags a huge swath of the Southern Christian vote.
Despite the clarity of these details, many Republicans are still calling for fundamental shifts in the Democratic Party towards the middle or even over to the Right. Such a move would shake up the Democratic base, cause the party to drop a major number of voters, and then leave it with even more wishy-washy middle of the road voters.
What the Republicans are not advising is to change the organizational structure. In many of the more “cut-throat” industries of America people use the slogan, “There are no techniques, just secrets.” As if it is some secret how the Republicans have gained such strength in America, they continue to tout their victories as a moral and social shift, thus embedding this lie into the soreness of another Democratic defeat. That the Democratic Party is even debating changing its stance on issues to win the next election is proof enough that this lie is working.
What the Democrats need now is to get back to their roots. Once again, encourage conservation. Though the Bush Administration has ushered in a new era of focus on militarism, there is still a huge population dedicated to the issues of the environment. Work with that. Remind America which party in the past has created social programs that help the poor and needy. Make education a major issue again as well. Take a stance on abortion and stick with it. Do the same for gay rights. No matter the stance on whatever the issue, voters will be lost. The Democrats must get over that fear. Strength and clarity on an issue will attract those who believe fully in that issue and build strong party foundations.
The days of Democratic flip-floppery have got to end. Shift to the left for real, and believe you me, the party will start to attract more voters. Don’t let the Republican win cause people to believe the nation is somehow turning more Conservative than Liberal. We are in the middle of two wars. No sitting president has ever lost re-election during a war, let alone two of them. Liberalism is very much alive and there are hundreds of thousands of people like me just wanting to support the Democrats but still having doubts and reservations. Many of us non-Democrats supported John Kerry, but many like me were very hesitant to do so.
A “radical faction”, such as the far left, will not destroy the party. It will instead strengthen its base. Strength of platform is the most important issue in politics. In the end it is true that the Democrats should become more like the Republicans. This does not mean taking on Republican issues though. Get rid of those thoughts. If the Republican political structure is instead analyzed and implemented, the Democrats will begin to rebuild their party and win elections.
This may not come in 2008, or even in 2012. It is hard to tell how long it will take to break the strength of the Republican Party. Eventually though, there will come an election where the left leaning Americans will finally come together for real on key issues. These goals should be long term, not a year to year system for gathering voters. Bring Republican strength back in to the Democratic Party, not the Republican issues. If the platform is strong, the strong voters will come back to the party.
Posted by Adam Ducker at January 27, 2005 09:53 AMNice read, thanks.
“many Republicans are still calling for fundamental shifts in the Democratic Party towards the middle”
I think the problem is more that “many DEMOCRATS are calling for fundamental shifts towards the middle.”
I’m not saying for Dems to become Republican lite either. But being so far left (liberal) is hurting the the once great Democratic party.
They may blame religion or stupidity but the average joe and joan American are not liberal or neo-conservative. They actually support issues from both sides of the isle and will usually vote for what they think is best for their family, country and pocketbook.
Posted by: kctim at January 27, 2005 10:52 AMRight on the mark, Adam. Good article.
No matter the stance on whatever the issue, voters will be lost. The Democrats must get over that fear.
Too many Democratic congresspersons are still acting like we have a majority, and are too busy keeping their seats to take risks and act like an opposition party. That needs to change.
In my state, Senator Feinstein is like that. She no longer represents Democrats - she represents the status quo. I’ll be working to vote her out, even if it means California loses a Senate seat to a Republican.
I’m taking the long view. If necessary, we’ll get the seat back when the state Democratic Party runs someone who will fight for Democratic values and ideals, rather than just to keep her seat in Congress.
I wish all my representatives were like Barbara Boxer.
I agree. And I’m actually encouraged by some of what I see from congressional Dems.
The middle of the road is a fine place to end up on certain issues, but Democrats need to stand for something that people can make sense of.
You are forgeting one important note: the republicans rebuilt their base by professing a strong moral platform, but at the same time they gave vioce to decent within their own party. This is nuanced approach that both give direction to the party without excluding those who think differntly. The most infuriating thing about the democrat party is that they for years refused to have a pro-lifer speak at their conventions. That is not an inclusive party. I believe that if Jimmy Carter were Running today he would not be welcomed in the DNC because of his outward profession of his faith.
Posted by: mike at January 27, 2005 12:09 PMAP
There is a significant and real perception problem.
Barbara Boxer is a good personification of this. To her supporters, Boxer is courageous, forthright and wise. I am guessing at these attributes, since I don’t see them, but I understand others do.
To me (and I think many non-liberals) she is flaky, not very smart and a whiner. I suspect we would have similar differences of perception with Henry Waxman or – if you really want to go to the fringe, Maxine Waters. Let me be clear, I don’t fear or respect them. If the Democrats had more like them they wouldn’t get elected to much of anything nationwide. Diane Feinstein is a serious Senator whom I do respect. I even respect Teddy Kennedy, but Boxer, no.
If Democrats seek to renew their liberal roots, they should also look into the personnel issue. Kerry might have won the election if his personality had been better. If Barbara Boxer is your template, you won’t get anywhere no matter the message or the opponent.
kctim:
You are correct about both sides. It is easy in American politics to divide quickly. It is probably my biggest problem as far as beginning to understand the root causes of political issues.
American Pundit:
What is sad about a number of Republicans is how they treat people like Boxer when they FINALLY do stand up for something. Studies by Ralph Nader show that 90% of the House and Senate return each term even though the voters are unhappy with the jobs their representatives do for them.
The most dangerous place for the Democrats as a party is with the status quo. The GOP knows after this return that the Republicans sticking with the status quo is what kept the Democrats ahead of them for half of the last century. When they were able to break out of that rut they rolled over the Democrats. It’s clear that the Republicans want to discourage any step out of the Democratic status quo by the Democrats.
William Cohen:
Again, this goes along with American Pundit. The CBC showed incredible unity and strength January 6th. I’m so proud of them. It was clear that the Republicans were not expecting it and were caught off guard at the very sight of Democrats with a spine.
mike:
You also make a good point. I don’t think the party is really anti-Christian by any sense, but the way they juggle the issues does make them afraid to show strong viewpoints these days. Like I said in the article, all it does is create a base with weak and half-hearted support. The money is there more than ever, but none of the strong grass roots. I was really hoping they would pull out of it in 2004, and they did to some extent, but it just didn’t happen as much as they needed. What they need is a long-term approach.
Jack:
What you’re saying is exactly what I’m arguing against. Boxer stood up for something she believed in. The whole issue with Rice is so overblown. Many conservative voices around the web are calling these actions “obstructionism” and unjustified. What they really want is for the Democrats to just sit back and take it since they are the minority party. It is clear that people like Boxer and the CBC are not going to do that, even if they suffer at the ballot box next time around. This is the direction the party needs to shift.
Furthermore, I can see nothing wrong with Kerry’s personality. The GOP’s campaign of “Kerry flip-flopped on this, and Kerry flip-flopped on that, and Kerry flip-flopped on flip-floppity flip-flopping…” is the only reason people believe Kerry has a personality problem.
What I wanted more than anything was a Kerry that was as strong as when he came back from Vietnam and stood up against the atrocities that took place there. The Kerry that was for military action and strength, but not for unjustified wars like Vietnam and Iraq. That is the base they should have organized in America but they didn’t pull it off.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 27, 2005 12:36 PMActually, my opinions of both Kerry and Boxer predate the events you mentioned and that is why I think they are poor messengers. My opinion of Kerry actually improved during the election campaign. You have to see the people are others see them.
Let me give a counter example. I like Dick Cheney. When he was Secretary of Defense I recall telling my wife that I wished someone like Cheney could be president, but I didn’t think he could because of his particular image (and his follically challenged status)
I understand, however, that most people don’t like Dick Cheney and liberals tend to despise him. I really can’t understand why, but I know that he can’t run for president. Let’s try an analogy test. Dick Cheney is to liberals what Barbara Boxer is to conservatives.
Bill Clinton ran as a centrist. His platform was solutions for America, not an aggressive liberal platform. He ran as a moderate, then executed as a liberal. He would probably not have won a second term without Ross Perot’s help (admittedly conjectural).
Bush ran as a centrist, a “compassionate conservative.” A common phrase in his 00 campaign
was “bringing democrats and republicans together,” and “uniter, not divider But he didn’t do that. He immediately locked the door on the left stage and kept it locked. Ask Tom Daschle if Bush is a uniter.
The left-wing approach of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy are not going win elections.
All they really do is fire up the right wing and alienate the moderates.
The way the democrats are going to win is the strategy that Hillary is already starting—appear to move to the middle on key issues. She has voted for Condi Rice, she spoke about common ground on abortion. She is positioning herself for 08.
It is interesting how prominant the pro-choice representation was at the RNC convention last year: Romney, Guilliani, Arnold. They all had prominent roles. Thier is at least hope of being heard by the opposition. The democrats are about to do the same.
I think most americans dislike partisanship. Few agree with everything about thier party. Many more would rather comprimise on some things. If a party is willing to reach out on issues and include differing opinions, they will better win the centrists in this country, which will generally win the election.
“Strength of platform is the most important issue in politics” is not correct. The democrats probably got 99% of the rabid pro-Choice vote already, why from a political standpoint would they spend their time and effort reaching these people?
jacktruth:
I still argue that it is not the issues that matter, but the motivation of the base which supports the issues the party stands stand for. Of course the Democrats need not run on a platform such as “Save the Great Apes” though that would be interesting. Every Democrat knows the issues which they can stand for. My only point is that they pick a place to stand and fight for it, whatever that place is.
Don’t listen to the Republicans who tell them become a Republican to win. Instead take a look at the Republican leadership and take notes. I still won’t believe it is the issues the Republicans stand for that help them win. I believe it is their strong and steady stance instead.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 27, 2005 05:05 PMAdam -
I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s been tiring of seeing strategies for the Democrats published by Republicans. Mea culpa: I’ve written my fair share of the genre. Nevertheless, I do think the fact that GOPies and independents come out with a new strategy for the Dems every other day highlights the indetermination within the Party. Harry Reid is pulling toward the center, Dean toward progressive rejectionism, Boxer & Kerry toward socialism. It’s a big mess, and they’re going to have to sort out some sort of unified agenda - and “opposing Bush at every turn” doesn’t count - or be relegated to second place status until they do.
And hey you lefties, I’d be interested to read a Dem strategy piece in the blue column of this board.
Posted by: Chops at January 27, 2005 07:39 PMmost people don?t like Dick Cheney and liberals tend to despise him. I really can’t understand why…
Haha! Jack, that’s why I pretty much ignore any advice you have for Democrats. :)
BTW, I don’t get FOX News or right-wingnut radio here in Singapore. Judging solely by what Boxer says, does, and the legislation she introduces, there’s no way she can be labeled “flaky, not very smart and a whiner”, or even very “left-wing”… Unless you guys think fiscal responsibility, strengthening the military, succeeding in Iraq, and adding chaff and flare dispensers to passenger planes is flakey or ultra-liberal.
Feinstein, on the other hand, spends way too much time opening new markets for Native American female basket weavers and playing dead for the Republicans. Unless you’re a Native American female basket weaver or someone who really wants a basket woven by a female Native American, she’s pretty much useless.
the republicans rebuilt their base by professing a strong moral platform, but at the same time they gave vioce to decent within their own party.
mike, if that was ever true (I don’t remember it), your vision of the Republican Party has been overtaken by events. The GOP leadership wants diversity, but only if they’re seen and not heard. Ask the Log Cabin Republicans, black Republicans, and Republicans for Choice - all pissed off because they’ve been told to sit down and shut up.
No, Adam is right about what re-animated the Republican Party in the 80’s and 90’s. They tightened up their organization and honed their message through a large number of think tanks and focus groups. Then they got their message out through an extensive, tightly focused network of media outlets.
Chops, the Democrats are starting to get their act together. I’m not a Harry Reid fan, but he’s put together a Democratic contract and a set of legislation to back it up. Democrats now have a focus and a clear understanding of what the Party stands for, “A Future of Security, Opportunity, and Responsibility.”
If you haven’t heard about it, it’s because we still have but a lone think tank, the Center for American Progress, and a single media outlet, Air America. We have a great vision for a strong America - and even some focus, but we’re hampered by poor advertising and no networks of Party affiliates (except MoveOn.org) to amplify the message and “educate” the mainstream media.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, or you don’t grasp how effective such a system is, look at how fast the Republican’s Social Security lexicon is changing. After focus groups and polling showed that the term “private accounts” was unpopular, it was changed throughout the entire system.
From the President, to the Congressional Republicans, to the think tanks and to the media outlets, word has gone out and the message received. Henceforth the GOP is fighting for “personal accounts”. Even the mainstream media is being educated,
Michael D. Tanner, director of the Social Security project at the libertarian Cato Institute, said “the term ‘privatization’ always polls about 20 points lower than a description of it.”Republican officials have begun calling journalists to complain about references to “private accounts”…
…Bush turned prickly a week ago Friday during an interview with The Washington Post aboard Air Force One when he was asked if he would talk to Senate Democrats about his “privatization plan.”
“You mean the personal savings accounts?” the president scolded. “We don’t want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.”
It’s effective, and Democrats are playing catch-up. Though I doubt we’ll ever acheive the lock-step control that the GOP can count on (by definition, that kind of authoritarian subjugation to tightly controlled, central planning is closer to extreme right-wing fascism than liberalism), but now we can at least all point in the same general direction when someone asks, Which way to a future of security, opportunity, and responsibility?
Adam,
I have no problem with your analysis, however I do take issue with some of your assumptions and a big missing part of your equation.
It angers me, when I see any such ‘advice’ start from the premise that the American voter is an engaged, well-informed, ideal citizen, who weights carefully such important issues before entering the voting booth.
If that was the case, Kerry would’ve won in a landslide.
How do you expect American voters to respond to the clarity of your proposal, when it has been proven that the lies of the Swift Boat Vets influenced many of them? When given a choice between hope and fear, the American voter will choose fear every time. The Conservative movement has built it’s elevation on the principles of fear and intolerance.
mike wrote:
the republicans rebuilt their base by professing a strong moral platform, but at the same time they gave voice to decent within their own party
This is absolutely false! You had two pro-choice speakers (Rudy and Ahhnold) at your Convention, but were not allowed to speak on the matter. The Log Cabin Republican delegation was barred from the South Carolina GOP State convention, and when told the creator of the ABC drama Desperate Housewives was a Gay Republican, Rev. Jerry Falwell suggested on Meet The Press that he join the Democratic Party instead.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at January 28, 2005 05:22 AMThe problem is not moderation, nor is a failure to recognize the ascendancy of the Republican party. It is a failure to compete on a narrative level. We aren’t getting out our competing interpretation of the American cultural and political landscape.
The moderate liberal position would not be an unpopular one, properly framed.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 28, 2005 09:22 AMBert M. Caradine:
Well, since you’re arguing the whole point of my article, I have to say I still disagree. You are right though about one point. I agree with the arrogant assumption that Kerry would have won if everybody was super aware of politics. Instead though, the Democrats just tried to bring too many people inside with moderation and beating around the Bush, literally. Saying Bush was a bad president was obviously not enough.
What they need is to say:
“This is what we stand for, like it or not. If you don’t like what we stand for get on board our committees and grass roots groups and help us change our platform. Don’t however expect us to fumble around so that both pro and anti-war, pro and anti-abortion, pro and anti-imperialism, etc., will all agree with us.”
I guess I may be just as bad as the Republicans giving advice when I consider myself far-left independent, but I bit the bullet this time and voted Kerry and lost, so I think I’ll have my say.
Posted by: Adam at January 28, 2005 10:25 AMI can’t blame Dem’s for not taking advice from Rep’s, but they might want to listen to the former Dem voters that left their party and why they left.
I can’t see where Republicans somehow outsmarted Democrats, they simply picked up the voters that Dem’s threw away.
If you go back 30-35 yrs. when Dem’s had more control, you will find that the issues that now divide the party were absent.
Back then, religion, gun-control, abortion, and gay marriage wern’t issues but they are now.
Pick any one of those issues and research how they might have effected your voting base.
Not all Dem’s agree with those things, but the ultra-left that do get all the media coverage.
Boxer may be a great voice for the liberal wing of the party and she’s in a safe blue state, but who is speaking out on the treatment that Condi has been getting in the confermation hearings, Republicans and black civilrights leaders?
I wonder how many black voters that vote 90% Dem were watching?
I missed the part where the leadership of the Dem party spoke up and mentioned all she had achieved in her lifetime. I wonder if the black voting base missed it too?
Oh well, whatever is working…stick with that.
Posted by: Beagle at January 28, 2005 11:43 AMDems probably will not take my advice, but I would give one observation.
Most of the people I work with voted for Kerry. They seem puzzled when I mention that I voted for Bush because I am not religious, not particularly rich, have post graduate degrees, don’t own a gun and do not live in a rural area. I even contribute to my local NPR station. Both parties have stereotypes of the other that are not true, but the Democrats are in more danger from theirs because it precludes engagement. I was insulted during that campaign by the idea promulgated by liberals that a person who voted for Bush was stupid, misinformed or a religious zealot. In contrast, I believed that liberals were wrong, but my judgment of them was a lot less ad-hominem. It got even worse after the elections, when liberals, even people in this blog, tried to prove “scientifically” that Bush supporters were less intelligent or delusional.
It makes people feel good to convince themselves that they are better than their opponents, but underestimating the opposition is a good way to lose. George Bush’s record in dealing with Democrats indicates that they consistently underestimate him. Each time he wins, they convince themselves that it was an anomaly or bad luck. When things happen the same way again and again there might be a pattern. Maybe it is time for a new way of looking at things.
I expect many of you liberals are now itching to write to convince me how stupid Bush is, how his policies have failed and how he doesn’t deserve to be president. You may be right, but your attitude is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Beagle wrote:
Boxer may be a great voice for the liberal wing of the party and she’s in a safe blue state, but who is speaking out on the treatment that Condi has been getting in the confermation hearings, Republicans and black civilrights leaders?
This perfect example of onerous manipulation, sets a new low Republicans are willing to stoop to.
How was Rice’s ‘treatment’ different from the grilling Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz or George Tenet were subject to, when called before the House to answer for their failed management of the Iraq War? Did Boxer make a false accusation about Rice? Absolutely not. And, that is why her comments were conspicuously absent from your charge.
Condi Rice has as many defenders in the Black community, as Armstrong Williams has radio listeners in the Black community. The reason there was no outrage from her ‘people’, was because they saw a Bush appointee being confronted directly (and respectfully) with evidence of their distortions and incompetence.
What does race have to do with that, Beagle?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at January 28, 2005 09:34 PMRace has nothing to do with it. Condoleeza Rice got to her position on the basis of her intelligence and ambition.
But I believe it would be an issue and her biography would be hailed as a triumph over segregation and adversity if she was only a Democrat. Liberal pundits made a lot of noise when President Clinton made Madeline Albright the first female Secretary of State. The chorus was much more muted when President Bush made Colin Powell the first African American Secretary of State and now that Condoleeza Rice has become the first African-American woman Secretary of State it doesn’t seem to matter at all to anyone. There are two possibilities. They are not mutually exclusive and I suppose they are both at play.
It could be that racism has become such an unimportant aspect of American society that nobody is in the least bit surprised when an African-American woman takes over the job first held by Thomas Jefferson. Or it could be that the liberal establishment doesn’t want to call attention to the success of any African-American who doesn’t toe their liberal line.
If you go back 30-35 yrs. when Dem’s had more control, you will find that the issues that now divide the party were absent. Back then, religion, gun-control, abortion, and gay marriage wern’t issues but they are now.
Thanks Beagle, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Those are called “wedge issues”. Over the last 20-25 years, GOP political strategists carefully crafted their emergence into the national debate.
Jack, that’s the second time I’ve seen you mention “the liberal establishment.” I’ve been a political junkie for many, many years, and I’ve never heard of a “liberal establishment”. Is that some new regulating board that that the blue states just instituted, or are you making it up?
Posted by: American Pundit at January 28, 2005 11:38 PMI don’t think I made up the term, liberal establishment, but I frankly don’t recall where or when I first heard it. Let me tell you what I think it means.
The liberal elite are those who control the mainstream media, entertainment industry, academia, most government bureaucracies and some of the professions, especially law and some of “helping professions”. It is not monolithic and usually not self-conscious. But it enforces its norms. Lawrence Summers ran afoul of the establishment when he suggested that innate gender differences could account for disparities of male and female achievement and had to apologize over and over.
Civil rights organizations tend to be part of the liberal establishment and that is what I am talking about re Condoleeza Rice. The Bush administration is the most diverse in U.S. history. Why does nobody notice this? Because people like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales although admirable members of minority groups, are also conservatives. Somehow this doesn’t count.
Jack, you forgot to explain how the all-pervasive “liberal establishment” ties in with the secret world government, the Bilderberg Group, and the black helicopters.
The Bush administration is the most diverse in U.S. history. Why does nobody notice this?
Are you serious? Turn on the TV. That’s all I hear.
I think what really puzzles you is, why don’t Democrats support Gonzales, he’s LATINO. Why are Democrats giving Rice a hard time, she’s BLACK.
Maybe it’s because I grew up after the big civil rights battles were over, or maybe it’s because I grew up in California, but I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what color they are or the circumstance in which they grew up. They’ve exhibited monumental failures of good judgment which makes their ability to do their jobs suspect.
Maybe you’re older than me, or live somewhere else and stand in awe of the racial integration phenomenon - like Bush Sr. all agape over a simple bar-code scanner - I don’t know. But if you think the media has been silent about Rice and Gonzales’ ethnicity, you haven’t turned on the TV over the last couple weeks.
Bert,
My point had nothing to do with the right or wrong of the questions or comments of Boxer or any other Dem. that questioned her, my point was, from a political standpoint what was gained by it?
Didn’t everyone from both sides of the isle know in advance that she would be confermed by a wide margin?
What did the average American voter see or hear of the exchange, a few soundbites on the nightly news and some print headlines that said “boxer grills Rice” or a few political cartoons with them in boxing gloves ?
If a moderatly interested person that reads or watches more news,and dug deeper they might have seen that Condi grew up poor in Alabama, her childhood friend was killed by racists that bombed a black church, and she worked hard for her education and now holds one of the most powerfull positions in the world.
Beyond that I saw some Black civilrights leaders upset over he treatment, and a list of those that voted against her. If there was much more I missed it, as did most everyone else.
My comment was based on political engineering, I saw it as a media circus, a fustercluck for the Democrat party, little to be gained, and at best something to be lost.
If someone took it as a personal attack on them or their party, I apoligise, that wasn’t my intent.
Posted by: Beagle at January 29, 2005 03:23 PMBeagle,
No doubt you’d characterize Boxer’s actions as an effort to make political gains, I’d frame it as finally an opportunity to get straight answers in an unedited and unfiltered setting, from one of the major figures of the administration’s failed Iraqi policy. I am also not surprised that you’d fail to appreciate that quickly following this widely reported exchange, the Democratic leadership would manage to negotiate a 9 hour floor debate to precede the full Senate vote on Rice’s confirmation.
If a moderately interested person that reads or watches more news,and dug deeper they might have seen that Condi grew up poor in Alabama, her childhood friend was killed by racists that bombed a black church, and she worked hard for her education and now holds one of the most powerfull positions in the world.
Does this now mean, that Senate Democrats had no right to question her performance as National Security Adviser? Were they then, not suppose to question the qualifications that the Republicans so vehemently insisted were sufficient, regardless of her race and background? Were Senators supposed to be satisfied (like a moderately interested person), that she deserved the job due solely to the racial adversity she experienced?
What you did that angered was not a perceived personal attack, it was your hypocritical play of the ‘race card’. Rice was to be judged on her merit you demanded, but criticism or accountability was distorted as racially motivated.
I’d sure like to see the names of these supposedly ‘upset Black Civil Rights leaders’, but whether you find it significant or not, 13 ‘Nay’ votes is the most ever cast against a Sec. of State nominee, in recent history.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at January 30, 2005 01:10 AMI’d frame it as finally an opportunity to get straight answers in an unedited and unfiltered setting, from one of the major figures of the administration’s failed Iraqi policy.
And rightly so, Bert. Because that’s exactly what it was.
Unfortunately, most of Senator Boxer’s collegues - clearly in “Oh, God! Please don’t call me an obstructionist!” mode - stated beforehand that they’d be voting for her. Knowing she had the confirmation sewn up, Rice didn’t answer any of the questions, resorting to the old, “How dare you!” debate tactic instead.
