Dems: The problem is less "spine" than it is old school/new school

[blondeatlast]

I'm prepared for the inevitable flames, but I think it needs said.

In the past 24 hours, we had the first real test of the Democratic Party. Results are decidedly mixed, IMHO. I was impressed by our people in the Gonzalez hearings, I couldn't watch or listen to most of the election challenge, so I know far less.

But what I've been seeing, day be day, year by year, is that our Dems in the Congress are woefully unprepared for the "new" enemy. Much like the Misadmins inability to cope with the Iraqi insurgents, the Dems in the Congress are used to the traditional opposition, the one that honors compromise, negotiation, and civility in order to hammer out legislation for the good of the country.

That opposition no longer exists. Their motto is us, not us or them. They don't give a flying fuck about the country. Look at the RW's reaction to Arlen Spector as the Judicial chair. He's old school. Hated by Dems, true, but he was willing to work with us. Now even he is seen as soomething of an enemy by the Radicals Rights in Congress and the opposition leadership.

Our people are woefully unprepared STILL for this. Look, I'm as unhappy as any Dem, but it's a systemic problem. We CAN help as long as we look to the survival of the party. Some of you may not care if ti survives, fine for you. I do care a lot.

We MUST adopt their tactics, and that includes our longtime Congresspeople (as well as promising new ones, like Obama). Once we've gained power, we can go back to bipartisanship.

Let's TRY (I know it's difficult) to stay positive. Instead of accusing those who voted against the challenge as having no spine, let's try to make them see how they can gain some. We can use our anger, but it must be focused. We know we haven't any power with the party, but we can still work within the system.

I'm not leaving the party; I see a strong Dem party as essential for the nation and democracy.

Don't think I'm doing a drive-by, I just have to post this before I go to work; I WILL return to it, I promise.

[AlbizuX]

1. i see a strong, progressive...

MOVEMENT of people on the outside as the key to America's salvation.

I never deposit my hopes on rich Democrat legislators...

The challenge didn't happen because of them...it's because WE lit a fire under their asses.

Let's do that again a couple more times, on other issues like social security, electoral reform, etc.

[HootieMcBoob]

17. true n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Got any matches? *g*

[mattclearing]

2. You are right on all counts. It makes you wonder, though, "How long?"

If the Iraq War doesn't convince "Play along" Dems that the time for negotiating with these lunatics is up, then what will?

Howard Dean sees the enemy for what it is, and has a plan to fight it properly.

Bill Clinton seems to recognize it and surely has recognized it and fought it in the past, but for whatever reasons (and he seems to know something we don't by his actions lately), he wants to play along.

I'm not sure what the last straw will be, but the Democratic Leadership has proven EXTREMELY resistant to change in this regard.

I'd say a great deal of the Democratic base is already way ahead of them.

The right-wing's base had to be brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh for ten years to get where they are now.

The process seems to be working in reverse for us...we have to brainwash our leaders to fight like we need them to.

[blondeatlast]

7. Your last line says it all in a nutshell.

We need to train THEM.

I don't even think they sense what has ahppened to them.

[Guaranteed]

11. Oh, I've got my whip out. nt

[Skidmore]

13. So who is doing this training?

From down here in the grassroots, it appears that paid political advisors and lobbyists are doing the training. For all the calls I've made to my legislators offices, I only have spoken with staff people and received form letters (insert topic here) in return. I'm not convinced these people ever read their phone logs or the letters sent to them.

[AlGore-08.com]

14. It's pretty obvious why Bill Clinton is playing along

Because HRC is the front runner for the 2008 nomination. He is playing along because he thinks that is a winning campaign strategy, and being confrontational is a losing strategy. He thinks that highlighting liberal issues (like gay marriage) is a loosing strategy, and highlighting conservative issues (like gun rights) is a winning strategy. (He has said that last many times.)

Much of what went on "behind the scenes" between 2000 and today has to do with folks in the party like Bill Clinton, who were convinced that Gore "lost" 2000 because his campaign was too liberal, and that running a campaign that appealed to the party base and focused on a massive GOTV drive of that base (rather than focusing on persuading middle class, white male swing voters in the Midwest and border states) was the stupidest idea ever. (Karl Rove, on the other hand, knew a good idea when he saw it.)

What the "old school" Dems are really unprepared for is the fusion of the far right think tanks with the mainstream media, so that right wing talking points become the conventional wisdom at all times. (The Social Security privatization "debate" is an excellent case in point, with both sides arguing that Social Security is on the verge of bankruptcy, which it isn't, not by a long shot.) The thing that is truly mind boggling to me is the idea that so many folks have that if we just get the "right" candidate who just take the "right" positions, this won't matter - - simply by the force of somebody's charisma or by the popularity of some idea or the strength of some argument, the news media will suddenly start reporting objectively.

This, IMNSHO, is the biggest barrier we face.

[mattclearing]

16. Non-confrontation will not win the primary.

And it certainly will not win in the general, as John Kerry showed.

I personally want a fighter, someone who bare knuckle destroys the opposition with the righteousness of their words and the clarity of their voice, the truth of their character.

John F. Kennedy strikes me as someone who was prone to saying profoundly true and inspiring things.

I'm tired of timid Democrats trying to tell me what they think other people want to hear.

It's clearly a trip straight to electoral hell.

Edited to note: But Gore got more votes. If anything, his electoral math was a little fuzzy, but anyone familiar with the Florida situation in 2000 knows that Gore would have won a fair election.

[Q]

3. No...the 'test' of the Democratic party has been the LAST FOUR YEARS...

...Gonzales and election reform are only the most recent capitulations. Certainly you don't believe the Democrats woke up yesterday and realized that they've been had? They've had four or more years to realize that the Bush* government intends to destroy...not just the Democratic party...but everything they've worked to achieve over the last several decades.

The Democratic party isn't 'unprepared' at all. They knew what was going on in 2000 when the Bushies steamrolled right over them to take the White House. You would think that would have raised a red flag...but instead it led to even more compromise with criminals.

I believe what we're seeing is the right wing of the Democratic party turning over the keys to the party to the Neocons. In essence they're saying...here, YOU drive.

The division within the Democratic party revolves around what the leadership has allowed the Bushies to get away without at least going on the record in opposition. It should be an insult to every Democrat that their leadership uses the same rhetoric as the Bushies to denounce anyone against the Iraq 'war'. We're told that we're 'supporting the terrorists' or 'hurting the cause' of the war on terror by both Neocons and Neodems if we point out the truth...that it's a lie to say that the US is fighting the war on terror in Iraq or that it has anything to do with 9-11.

[Pab Sungenis]

10. Clinton was the biggest....

"go along" Democrat in history. He sold out a lot of our core beliefs in 1992 and 1996. Sure, he got elected, but what did we really accomplish during that time?

Okay, other than peace and prosperity....

[welshTerrier2]

4. the "old" school

the "old" school was a Democratic Party that fought for workers, fought against unjust wars,fought against the abuses of big money in our democracy and fought for civil liberties ...

the problem isn't that Democrats need to become "new" school; it's that they need to become "old" school ...

i agree the problem is not about "spine"; it's about core values ... i think Democrats have been so busy fighting to "win" that they've stopped fighting for what we believe in ...

[Skidmore]

15. Amen to that. Preach it.

That is what I mean when I say our leaders have forgotten the principles. They don't have a consistent message. What do they stand for other than winning. They've forgotten who brought them to the dance. It was the worker.

[Guaranteed]

5. You have real concerns about our party and our country.

You should be derided and laughed at! That's how we do it here on DU!

You're just a complainer!

/big sarcasm off

[blondeatlast]

20. Oh, I have been...

I've grown a tough cyber-skin!

[sendero]

6. You make a great point..

.... but you have to admit, the Dems in congress have had ample time to adapt, and little has changed.

Granted, they stood up to the threat of the Repugs to change the filibuster rules, but you can bet the pugs will come at them again and again with these tactics.

For some of us the question is more troubling. Is it a problem of recognizing and adapting or it is a problem of entrenched interests going along to get along.

You can make a pretty good case for the latter IMHO.

[Guaranteed]

8. It ultimately doesn't matter, either way.

The reasons don't matter. The result is and will be the same.

A destroyed Democratic Party, and a fascist country.

[blondeatlast]

9. But my point is, yes, they've failed us, but we can help them succeed.

The party leadership won't do it, the party MEMBERSHIP must take the reins.

I'm not sure how, but it needs doing.

[Guaranteed]

12. We've gotta play hardball.

I think that means we have to form a viable third party (not go Green).

This will chop off a large percentage of the Democrat's voters, and, much like the primary, force them to grow a spine and move back over the ground the new party is covering. The new party, most likely, will be wiped out when this happens, but if it helps the Democrats back into a place that they should be in, then all's well that ends well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. It extends to framing of issues also

Old style was to seek areas of agreement. New style is to steamroll right over opponents. The DU Wesley Clark Supporters Group has a thread up with with favorite quotes of his. This one seems relevant (taken from a magazine article):

"Somebody once told me in business that when you're going to negotiate a business deal, you stake out (Clark slams the table) your position and stand on it! Don't go in there and ask what they want. Say, `Here's what I want!' (slams table again).
"You've got a Republican Party under Gingrich and Tom DeLay that says, `Here's what I want' (slams table again.) "Then you've got the Democrats over here saying, `Yeah, ah, yeah, we could, some of what you say makes pretty good sense.

"The result is the American people don't see the full spectrum. Before the 2002 election there were a lot of Democratic politicians apparently who said, `I don't have the information. I can't battle with the president on the information. He's got the intelligence. What if there is a smoking gun in there? I can't fight the president in my congressional district.'

"What we've got to do is stake (slams table again) out our position. For instance on tax reform, stop (slam) saying (slam) you agree with simplification of the tax code. . . . We stand (slam) for progressive taxation. We're proud of it. If you make more, you should pay more, period!"

[kodi]

19. the dems are not so good at asymmetric warfare

.