|
I have nine criterea set up to define "fight" Kerry hasn't met one of them. Dean has. But decide for yourself.
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 and advocate 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.
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.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
