Democrats, change your ways - By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist

[papau]

Democrats, change your ways
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | August 4, 2005

IT IS TIME for Democrats to stop moaning about John Roberts and John Bolton and start doing something productive -- such as figuring out how to win elections.

Even though Democrats continue to resist the outcome, George W. Bush won the 2004 presidential contest. His reelection triggered a time-honored cliche: To the victor, go the spoils. Bush selected a Supreme Court nominee and an ambassador to the United Nations who reflect his philosophy. Any Democratic president would do the same.

The Senate has the responsibility to press Roberts on his views and philosophy. But it should come as no shock that Bush would select a conservative thinker as his nominee. So far, activists' effort to paint Roberts as an extremist looks silly. Here is a candidate whose first written response to questions from lawmakers states that judges should possess ''modesty and humility." Roberts understands how to market himself to the masses in a way the abortion rights lobby never learned.<snip>

In his campaign, Hackett called Bush a ''chicken hawk" for failing to serve in Vietnam and ''a cheerleader for the enemy," for goading Islamic militants to ''bring it on." It was not a winning strategy against Bush in the past, and it wasn't for Hackett against Schmidt. His attacks caused Republicans to throw money and resources into the race. Besides, chicken hawk Republicans have a track record for knowing how to dissect and dismantle war heroes, from fellow Republican John McCain to Democrats Max Cleland and John Kerry.

Democrats continue to fight the last campaign, while Republicans are planning for the next two. While the Democrats are busy bashing Bush -- a second-term president who is not running for anything -- the Republicans are working on their strategy for victory in 2006 and 2008. Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, continues the GOP outreach to Latino and African-American voters. Dividing up the Democratic base and conquering even a small piece of it helps Republicans in future elections and hurts Democrats.<snip>

Democrats should also do with stem cell research what Republicans did with gay marriage: present the issue for a vote on every possible state ballot. Republican Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader from Tennessee, just demonstrated the power of the issue. Frist's surprise endorsement of a bill that would approve federal funds for new lines of stem cells enraged the right. But Frist knows the political center supports it, and the political center is where a presidential contender wants to be. In stem cell research, Democrats, for once, have an issue that fires up their base and cuts to the center, across diverse demographic groups.<snip>

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is [e-mail].
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/04/democrats_change_your_ways?mode=PF

[Deja Q]

1. He's right.

Our "society", as we've made it or allowed it to be, means the winner can do what he/she chooses.

If there is an election machine issue, we need to go after it the day it comes out. Those who waited until April to start crying out despite lots of pre-election concerns shouldn't even be involved.

Dems need to get the truth out.

We need to stop trying to be the "me too" party. That is not working.

Bashing Bush will only work to an extent; we also need to put up strong candidates and not let the CM tear them down in order to put in wimps in their places.

[Mass]

2. It's a she, and more a moderate Republican than a Democrat

How many times has she said she liked Romney!

[nyhuskyfan]

3. Using Hackett as an example is foolish...

He was neck-and-neck in one of the most republican districts in America, one that was never even supposed to be close.

[MostlyLurks]

4. I don' think that was her point...

I think she was saying that had Hacket NOT been so blunt in how he talked about Bush, he wouldn't have attracted the Republican machine and money. She seems to be saying that he may have been able to win if he hadn't attracted the attention of the RNC and kept it as a local/meaningless race.

Mostly

[nyhuskyfan]

5. Maybe...

But I think that in being outspoken, he galvanized enough people to vote for him as well. There's no way to reverse history to know what might have happened if he didn't, but the race for that seat has usually been a 30-point spread.

I'd rather we air on the side of being too aggressive than too cautious. The right just smears and smears until something sticks (the same guy who was painted as the #1 most liberal member of the senate was also painted as a flip-flopper with no conviction), while we seem to be far too calculating. The straight shooter approach that Howard Dean and Paul Hackett have shown seems to be effective.

[papau]

6. I agree - straight shooter approach is the only one that sells today

"no conviction" is best fought with a half dozen ideas that you do not stray from.

[MostlyLurks]

7. I agree.

I don't agree with the point she almost made (that I inferred), but I understand the logic behind her argument. I think it's probably true that Hacket got a lot of the votes he did because he spoke so plainly and undiplomatically.

Mostly

[dsc]

8. She is flat out wrong on that

Republicans are nothing if not calculating. The only reason they spent that money was that polls showed a close race. It didn't matter what he said, or didn't say.

[Mass]

9. I think this blog says all that needs to be known on this reporter.

http://www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com/

This passage...
from Joan Vennochi's current column just drives me crazy:

More evidence of their difficulty comes from Ohio. On Tuesday, former state Representative Jean Schmidt, a Republican, narrowly defeated Paul L. Hackett, a Democrat and Iraqi war veteran.

Schmidt won a special election to replace Representative Rob Portman, a Republican who resigned from Congress after winning Senate confirmation to become US trade representative. Hackett, an underdog, lost by only about 4,000 votes. He scared the GOP, but still he lost.

In his campaign, Hackett called Bush a ''chicken hawk" for failing to serve in Vietnam and ''a cheerleader for the enemy," for goading Islamic militants to ''bring it on." It was not a winning strategy against Bush in the past, and it wasn't for Hackett against Schmidt. His attacks caused Republicans to throw money and resources into the race. Besides, chicken hawk Republicans have a track record for knowing how to dissect and dismantle war heroes, from fellow Republican John McCain to Democrats Max Cleland and John Kerry

Is it so much to ask that Joanie just occasionally acknowledge the outrageous treatment the GOP metes out to veterans in general and democratic war veterans in venomous particular???
In fact I can't recall a single instance from campaign 2000 wherein this spiteful no talent ever denounced the GOP's mendacious attacks on Kerry's patriotism & war record.
Oh no somehow its the DEMOCRATS FAULT for bringing down this shitstorm of lies and innuendo upon some of the bravest and most honorable men to walk this earth!

This is appalling, Joanie ought to be ashamed, alas she comes from out a cohort of punditry singularly proud of their shamelessness.

[MissMarple]

10. Didn't he lose only in a historically Republican county & by just a hair?

I thought he won in most precincts. Actually he did quite well with how he campaigned.