How to recognize a fighting democrat when you see one.

[Code_Name_D]

How to recognize a fighting democrat when you see one.
I am extremely critical of the Democrats. Their performances to the recent three year long crises have been disgusting, if not treasonous in its own right. Of course, the DLC apologists usually hit us over the head with "what would you have them do?" And it’s a valid criticism.

Here is an answer to that charge. I have come up with eight criteria that would define "fight." And all though we have seen a few Democratic candidates practice one or more. No one has yet risen to all three.

One: To oppose bad law. Not to try to "soften" bad law with amendments to make its passage. A good example is Bush's recent tax cuts. The democrats managed to put in a per-child tax cut previsions, making the law more palatable to the public as well as within its own members to vote for it, or risk being painted as being against the child tax credit by the Republicans. But later, when talk arose about repealing the tax cuts, the dems were slammed over the head by wanting to repeal their own softening provisions. Bad law, such as the tax cuts, must be fully and completely opposed.

Two: To be a voice for the record. And to use that record of you're opponent, against your opponent. The silences from the Democrats on many issues are defining when all they have to do, is speak the record. What IS in the Patriot act? What is the record with the war on Iraq. A Democrat needs to be nothing more than an echo for the past. But the DLC considers such tactics as "negative campaigning" and opposes it. And certainly the Republicans call this "mud throwing." But they are shooting the messenger, and it is a form of censorship, and enables the Republicans to carry out their agenda.

Three: To challenge your opponents through debate and argument. Currently the Republicans have a secrete agenda. A secrete that is held out in plain view, but still never talked about. There is PNAC, Enron, and a whole host of scandals. But the first step to evading responsibilities is to never be asked critical questions. We all know the press won't ask them, but why won't the Democrats ask them?

During the 2000 campaign, Gore limited himself to just three debates under highly controlled conditions that favored Bush. We kept waiting for Gore to tarry Bush apart. But you can't do that if you aren't asking any questions!

Here is the thing. The Republicans love to shoot their mouths off. We have seen them shoot themselves in the foot over and over and over again. But you can see more of this if you start pushing the Repugs buttons, working the debate and trick them into taking the mask off. The court of public opinion will do the rest. But only if you engage them in debate.

And channels of debate need not be a TV exchange. A democrat need send no more than a certified letter with a request for a response. But so to there is the telephone, e-mail, and public message boards. If the republican declines to respond, then you send another letter, then make the charge that "republicans are afraid to debate."

Four: To be a servant and advocate to the spirit of the law. Even if this means that you must violate the letter of the law in upholding its spirit. And you must be prepared to engage in civil disobedience if necessary. The Texas Killer Ds are holding true to this call.

Five: To speak directly to the people. Currently, Gore and Clinton only speak for paid engagements. And shortly before I write this, Kerry spoke in Dallas Texas without even informing the precinct Captain that he was going to be there. This particular captain just happened to be one of the hosts of Radio Left, and would have covered the event, and would have given him a favorable interview. But this didn't happen. Before then, Radio left tried to seeks to find a Democratic congressmen or representative to interview on the air. The only got an answer machine. But a Republican Representative (not some mer staffer) was available within hours for an interview. This what Radio Left referees to as a road map to failure. During the 2002 campaign, when we were critical of the DLC's silence, they answered back with an obscure reference to "a secrete plan."

In contrast is Howard Dean has made him vary public. He has an online Blog, speaks regularly, and has the Dean meet ups at his disposal. When the media attacks him, he responds decisively within 24 hours. He has already taken up Radio Left's offer to an interview.

But there is more. Stump speeches, though for the moment, can not pierce the media blockade against democratic speakers. And they are meaningless to the masses who are not able to make it to the event. Dean needs to flood his web sight with MP3 of his speeches, and write regularly on the issues. He must relearn the art of ordination.

Six: To be persistent and relentless. Governor Davis recently made headlines with the words "Republicans can only work to steal elections they can not win." Truer words were never spoken, and it even made headlines in the so called "liberal media." Now THIS is fight. But what has he done sense? Such momentum is worthless is one is now willing or able to back them up. To press his attack, Davis needs to call attention to Diebold and other voting problems prevalent in his state.

Seven: To show leadership to the public. Currently, liberals and progressive are doing every thing within their power to organize marches against the war, and against other issues seen as priorities of the GOP. But it is becoming apparent that such organizations are not possible without leadership. In time, persons will stand out from the crowd, and have the pretenses and influence to rise to leadership roles. But we do NOT have that kind of time. We must look to our current leaders. If Dean truly opposed the war in Iraq, than why did he not play a role in organizing the anti war marches? But imagine what would take place, if Dean was to ACTIVELY coordinate a march on Washington to oppose the War in Iraq. The media could NOT ignore such an assembly, of the masses, and with his voice speaking there, the message of the anti-war protesters would also made headlines. Just as Dean must speak directly to the people, he must USE the masses to get his message out. He has this right.

Eight: Pay attention to strategic position. This is where I reserve my harshest criticism for the DLC. For the past 30 years, they have practically assisted the Republicans with the destruction of their OWN position of strength within the government. Having the WILL to fight is futile of you do not also poses the means. But this vary means, such as the Fairness Doctrine, and what one can only call an unwillingness to fund or take advantage of liberal programming. Even as radio, TV, news paper, and publications are FULL of sponsored right wing freaks such as Limbaugh and Cuolter, the DLC doesn’t even seem to care that their own constituents can only reach their voice mail. We must now work to over come decades of incompetence and shortsighted ness.

Spelling error in the headline.

[Ein]

1. Amazing! Thank you.

The Democrats have been conceding and playing softball for a long time now. It is one of the reasons I chose not to register Democratic, they seem unable to stand up for the liberals and other leftists in this country.

Everything bad that has happened has taken the complicity or acquiescence of Democrats in the Congress and Senate.

[Code_Name_D]

2. Thanks.

Its not that they arn't standing up for librial and progresive ideals, but that they refuse to stand up to the GOP and their ruinus agenda. The GOP truly transends normal politics. It is incresingly apprtint that we are dealing with fahsism, and this fact has been stated by the DU and by the people of Eruope.

But not by the Democrats? Regardless of the DLC's agenda, any thing less than anouncing the obveus is both unecetable, and futile as well. They (The DLC) enable the Republicans by their silence, and impower them by their incompetence.

But stating this is not enugh. I am trying to presend what we NEED from democratic oposition. Even though Dean is in the lead, and our best chance, Dean still falls short of these crititrea.

Can a Democrat posible beat the GOP with less than what I have posted? Are their other critirea that I failed to mention? Are my creitrea relivent and accureate? These are questions I have of the DU. And this issue is extremly important. How we debate this, will define how the canadates will shape their campain by giving them clear goals to meet.

It is both disapointing and frustrating that this is the thired time I have posted this, and you are the only responce thus far.

[Psychoblues99]

6. Please clarify. I'm sincerely interested in your evidence.

As you verbalise here that you refuse to register Democratic (I am not registered either) how do you propose to change anything? Really, I want to know?

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,,.,,,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,.,,.,,.,.,.,.,,,.,.,,.,.,.,,.,.,,.,.,

[rucky]

3. Right On The Money...

The only thing i would clarify is that Dean does have extensive video archives of his speeches, tho I must admit the stump speech is getting much shorter and less specifiec than his earlier, or more targeted speaking engagements

Let's keep this thread alive for the morning crowd...

Thanks, D!

:kick:

"Slap the Donkey!"

[heresy]

4. It,'s about time

It is time that the democratic party realized we are at war with the Republicans!The Republican party understood years ago that they were becoming a dying breed as we faced the millennium, and that to turn things around for them, they would have to fight tooth and nail.They will Lie,cheat,steal, and I believe even murder to do so.This no longer just friendly debating of ideology and some bribes here and there.This is, and has been for awhile a war. It is one which we are doomed to lose, unless we can wake up and unite.Even if we have to stoop to their level, and we will.Sometimes taking the high road just doesn't get the job done.

[Psychoblues99]

7. It's about time that oppositional leftist parties realized that we are at

war with the pukes. I'm not asking anyone to toe the Democratic Party line, as even the Democratic Party realizes such is folly and unwise. I'm just pointing out that division amongst the left is a puke ploy and thousands even here in DU have fallen for it.

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'.,..,.,,,.,.,.,.,,.,,,.,..,..,,..,,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,,.,,.,.,,.,.,,.,,.,,,.,..,.,,.,.,,.,.,.,,.,,.,,.,..,,.,.,.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi heresy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Psychoblues99]

5. Not to dissuade you in any way, CND, but I failed to see anything in there

about winning a national election. Maybe it's just an oversight on my part or maybe you have just one more post that is at best a condemnation of Democrats. It's not that I think Dems are perfect because I really don't. I just recognise that any alternative that I've seen so far is just so weak and even worse in many ways than the Dems. I know, I know it's tuff to cling to oppositional political entities but at some point you have to realize, at least I did, that things aren't perfect and you have to go with what you can really calculate as your best chance for the advancement of your ideals. The "it's gotta get worse before it will get better" thing is just plain nuts, IMHO. I choose to change my Party, the Democratic Party, from within and fully understanding that even similar platforms of other attractive oppositional parties are just that, oppositional.

At least I've thought it out, over and over again. I can't come to any other conclusion. I'd be very happy to hear about some numbers that I might be overlooking.

Psychoblues

Dems Gotta Keep On Truckin'.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,.,,,.,,.,.,.,,,.,,.,,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..

ps. I don't think many DUers would recognise a "fighting democrat" if s/he slapped them across the jowls with a backhand, do you?

[unfrigginreal]

9. Interesting thread...

ps. I don't think many DUers would recognise a "fighting democrat" if s/he slapped them across the jowls with a backhand, do you?

I'd be interested in what democrats you feel are fighting. I know myself, I've had a hard time finding any that would fall where I do in the political spectrum that I'd consider as fighting. Exceptions being Dean, Gore's latest speech and Clinton's bitch slapping of the Republican partisan at a recent gathering.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. And Kucinich

and the rest of the Progressive Caucus.

Unfortunately, they get little or no publicity for their efforts.

The press seems to avoid anyone who talks about really changing things, even the mainstream Dems disparage them, and of course the corporate interests wish they would go away.

[JohnKleeb]

15. yes

thats the misfortune of it all. These people the progressive cancus, are some of the biggest fighters in congress, we got Kucinich, Lewis, Lee, and many more.

[Code_Name_D]

21. Than how dose Kucinich mesure up to these critera?

Sence you suport KD, I will ask you the following. This not to mesure DK, as much as it is to mesure my criterea. I think we both agree that DK has the most fight.

A) What criterea posted here (there are now nine) dose DK match. Give examples where posible please.

B) How would you dismisss the critrea that DK dose not match?

C) Dose DK have any "fighting qualites" that I have not listed here?

[Terwilliger]

11. bitch slapping?

how liberal :eyes:

[Code_Name_D]

17. A critical voice I see.

I failed to see anything in there about winning a national election.

This is actually quite observant sense this has little to do with winning election. Just defining whether Democrats are "fighting" or not. I suspect that with the current political landscape, those who do fight in some measure have a better chance of winning from the democratic ticket. The 2002 election would seem to bare this out as Democrats who took a stand against the war did better in their districts than Democrats who voted for the war, but not enough so to put the DLC's argument of appealing to the center to rest.

Where it dose deal with national elections, is attempting to tap into that vast expanse of non-voting, yet registered voters. It is the opinion of many that they are not voting, because they are "voting with their feet," or in more current lexicon, unwilling to hold their nose while pulling the handle. If they do not see some one they are willing to support, then they go home without voting. I am making a guess that if those voters see these traits in a candidate that they will come out for them.

And indeed, it may be that the reason why Republicans have such broad support is that they LOOK like they have these traits. But that will require some more thinking before I could agree with that thought just yet.

But these criteria need not apply to candidates or office holders. It could be argued that Martian Luther King Jr. kept to all of these criteria, while never running for office. Only to seek out change.

Maybe it's just an oversight on my part or maybe you have just one more post that is at best a condemnation of Democrats.

I would beg to make a distinction here. I am not critical of ALL Democrats. I am only critical of the DLC's strategy, competence, and agenda. I do not paint with so broad a brush.

I know, I know it's tuff to cling to oppositional political entities but at some point you have to realize, at least I did, that things aren't perfect and you have to go with what you can really calculate as your best chance for the advancement of your ideals.

I reject this notion. For it is at the heart of the DLC's "center" policy. Democratic strategy is largely that of compromise built upon compromise upon compromise, all to the end of "winning." But winning isn't the point of politics, but self governing. And the Republicans exploit this attitude to great effect. It's like the Coyote trying to catch the Road Runner. He runs faster and faster, until he is almost within reach. It is at that point the road runner makes a hair pin turn, and the coyote runs off the edge of the cliff.

An example of this is the recent tax cut battle for Bush's 2002 tax cut package. The democrats saw what they would call a weakens in the package, no provisions for the poor. So they brow beat the republicans with a per-child tax credit. The Republicans made the "economic warfare" charge, bloodying up the Democrats that way, but caved in and let the per-child tax credit get into the bill. But now the Republicans are strutting around showing OFF that prevision in the tax bill as if it was their idea. But when the Democrats start talking about the damage the taxes have, they bring out the "you are just playing politics" charge (which is true, because plenty of Democrats voted for the thing.). And then accuse the Democrats of being against the poor by wanting to repeal the per-child tax credit.

Another example would be the McKaine/Fingole campaign finance reform. They wheeled and dealed with the GOP to try and water it down enough to get the GOP to support it. (Over a Bush Veto I might add.) The wheeling and dealing took out all of the teeth, and dubbed the "hard money" limitations, in essence, making soft money legal. While advocacy groups are hoveled by the same provisions. But by now, the Corps choice to gibe all of the money to the Repugs, while the Advice groups that have always supported the Dems now have their hands tied. The result is a stronger Republican party, a weaker Democratic party, and a campaign system that is now more corrupted than ever before. And any attempt to address the shortcomings from this law, gets beaten back by the Repugs with the hypocrisy charge, which sticks because to a large extent, is true.

The CLS's centrist policy violates the first rule. Oppose BAD law. By "calculating" your best chances, you are playing the same compromise game that resulted with the above to examples. Those compromises were all calculated in order to win votes in order to claim "victory." But these victories are piric, and usually cost the Dems far more than in the long run. Calculating in and of itself is also a risk adverse strategy. It also expresses a lack of conviction on any issue sense a compromise can be calculated on any issue. While the democrats are playing political games, the Republicans are stealing the country.

The "it's gotta get worse before it will get better" thing is just plain nuts, IMHO.

It's not a "plan" but a reality of the situation. Especially if the DLC continues to barter with the repugs, rather than stand up to them.


ps. I don't think many DUers would recognise a "fighting democrat" if s/he slapped them across the jowls with a backhand, do you?

Strange, I just gave eight criteria by which to identify just such a thing. It was why I wrote this in the first place. I think perhaps you should go back and actually read what I just wrote, sense this comment hints at the notion that you have no idea what this thread is all about. An that you are just here to try and pin "democrat basher" on my coat.

[Terwilliger]

12. not a lot of response

and just as typically so

[ibegurpard]

16. Probably because there's not a lot that a whole lot of people

would feel like arguing with.

[Terwilliger]

19. because there's no way to counter the assertions?

or because you've given up

[ibegurpard]

23. ummm....because I AGREE with them?

:shrug:

[Upfront]

13. Right On The Mark

Excellent post. I hope people are reading this because these are some of the things that need to change if we are to win.:bounce:

[Egnever]

14. I am reading it.

And i think it needs a :kick:

[dansolo]

18. Don't let Bush frame the issues

They should have forced Bush to veto their bills. A classic example of this was the Homeland Security bill. The Democrats had plenty of time to force Bush to publicly declare that he would veto the Homeland Security bill when he was initially against it. But instead they let the issue sit until Bush decided for political reasons that he would be in favor of it. Then Bush, with the help of the Republican-led House, included a bunch of items that should have never been in there, forcing the Democrats to come out against it. They had the advantage, and they could have destroyed the facade of Bush caring one bit about Homeland Security, but they blew it. Daschle should have resigned as Majority Leader on that issue alone.

[Code_Name_D]

20. Nine: To advocate and patron for scholars

Nine: To advocate and patron for scholars who are knowledgeable in the areas of the given issues. It is the nature of politics today, that this is a "field" in and of it self, that makes it extremely unlikely for any person to be thoroughly educated in any field. Though there are exceptions, such as Dean being a licensed physician, the limitations of simply being human will limit any one to only a hand full of fields. But a politician or office holder is going to have to raise and deal with hundreds, if not thousands of separate issues. Most of which will be extremely technical in their nature, as well as being vary complex. Issues such as education, the environment, energy, and health care. Some will also intersect, such as environmental policy and health care.

This makes it impossible for any one person to even be competent on all issues. The solution however, is not to even try, and instead depend upon the finds and arguments of others who ARE leaders in their field. And in many cases, even "lending their voice" (give up the podium) to these scholars in an effort to educated the public, as well as answer highly sophisticated and technical questions from what ever source they may come from. These scholars should also be the pool from which they draw their presidential cabinet, placing their knowledge and experience directly over the subject at hand to carry out public policy. (As oppose to Bush, who seems to only appoint his friends.)

[Code_Name_D]

22. Kick

:kick: