Wa Post article on Dems who are afraid to play rough....

[HardWorkingDem]

Here is a pretty good article by Dana Milbank on how Washington Dems shy away from playing rough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR2005081201596.html

It hits the nail right on the head. Last night I saw some of Bill Maher's latest stand up show. Dems should take a listen to what he says and hire him as a consultant.

For example, he ranted about how Conservatives should be shamed for being so loyal to Bush and his administration regardless of all the mess ups Rummy, Cheney and Bush have made. He pointed out that to continue to loyal to these idiots is not to be loyal to America.

People like Maher and Stewart cut through all the pointless Dem blathering on and are able to put out short, concise and pointed observations that are able to cut through the short attention span of the American people.

[BootinUp]

1. Please don't listen to Shrum and Lehane.

The NARAL ad was indefensible.

[HardWorkingDem]

2. Broader theme is the concern...

See, this is one of our problems - the article discusses a broader theme rather than just Shrum, Lehane and the NARAL ad - and it obviously is a larger issue than a lot of Dems are willing to discuss. And this lack of a willing to discuss it is shown by two facts: the rise of Howard Dean and his backbone and the constant showing of voters don't know what Dems stand for in poll after poll.

We have got to learn to be as mean and tough as the Rethugs. We must show those voters that share our values but are concerned about what we stand for, that we are more than willing to stand tough. (Now, don't get me wrong, I sincerely believe the most loyal of Dems are firm in their values and beliefs, but as a Party, the Dems do not do this as effectively as Rethugs).

[ihaveaquestion]

4. I never saw the NARAL ad, but when dems join the repukes

in condemning something it makes them look weak. They need to keep the focus on attacking the repukes policies and hypocrisies. Use something like the NARAL ad as an opening to make their own points instead of being the sounding board for the repukes criticisms. It just makes them look like the repuke-lite party.

It's very discouraging to have to try to rally for weaklings and that's what the dems are asking supporters to do quite often. I'm very close to withdrawing my support from the dem party and declaring as an independent at this point.

[frictionlessO]

3. After Dana insulted our best fighter John Conyers, and ragged

the DSMs hearing in which Cindy was also a part, I think Dana pretty much sucks ass. If he ever apologizes then I'll amybe start taking him at his word, until then he can just "sit and spin"... which is all he's good for in every sense of the phrase.

Sorry Im not all about this, and I am not commenting on you as a DU'er in any way. It's just that the hit piece that Dana put out there hurt our cause, he's no friend to the leaders I feel have stood up for us in the face of overwhelming odds. Therefore I will be no friend to him.

[HardWorkingDem]

9. Shooting the messenger....

Again, there has been plenty of writing on the wall when it comes to some of the core issues we need to deal with within the party. One is to get tough. And again, the ascendancy of Howard Dean and the constant confusion of those outside the party of what Dems stand for shows this with great clarity.

And when I say those outside the Dem party, I don't mean Rethuglicans, but potential Dem voters.

Here is another illustration that drive me completely bonkers: being a military veteran myself, when anyone goes and does research on politicians who have had either military or combat experience, the largest number of those military members tend to be Democrats. It is overwhelming, but what is the perception of Dems when it comes to military issues? We are weak on defense! Hell, some of the most liberal and patriotic people are very liberal Dems - McGovern, Rangle and others.

Regardless of personal animosities toward particular writers, if a writer points out a valid issue, then it might not hurt to pay a little attention to it.

[frictionlessO]

14. I agree when something valid is pointed out one should pay attention,

However we have been discussing this on DU and in the left blogs for a very long time now. Dana has just reiterated once again ideas he found on the blogs. There is no messenger to shoot here, because Dana was not the messenger for most of us.

My gripe is with Dana not his article or indeed your lauding of it, hell welcome aboard to both you and Dana is what I say. Dana is still an ass, though.

However you seem like pretty good people, and I agree with you.

[Mass]

5. Dana Milbank - enough for me to avoid reading

Remember how he reported Conyers's hearings about DSM.

[indepat]

6. Dems afraid of playing rough politically while our troops are dying and

getting blown up both physically and psychologically sums it up pretty well.

[Mass]

7. Happy to see Maher has at last deicded that Bush was wrong.

JUst around inauguration day, he did not stop saying how Bush may bave been right in Iraq and elsewhere (same thing for Stewart). Definitively not an article worth reading. There are REAL Dems who are not afraid (See Conyers, Boxer, or Kennedy) and never thought that Bush was right.

[ihaveaquestion]

8. The article mentions a speech by Bill Clinton last month

Does anyone know where I might find a link to it - preferrably to the video or audio?

[SeanQ]

10. Yes, they would both make good consultants on

how to phrase things to make a strong point.

But the party needs to be looking to people like Dean, Clark, Conyers, Boxer, Hackett and such. Those are the types of candidates, and leaders, we need more of! A wide (and could be wider) range of views that fall within party principles, but all willing to stand up and fight, to speak the truth clearly and fearlessly.

[Mass]

11. What is it that these people do not get!

The reason why the Repubs have incendiary ads is because they do not want to argue on the issues. They know their points do not have the support of a majority of Americans.

Incendiary talks coming from the Dems defeat their goal. They are right on the issues, but if they run ads like the NARAL ads, all that people can talk about are the ads, not the real issues that is that Roberts is not the right person to run.

When will we learn and stop throwing tantrums that divert attention from the real goal. We can attack Bush as often as we want, but please, do it on the ISSUES so that we keep focus.

[kentuck]

12. They are afraid to take a stand on issues like the war or gay rights....

Because they are afraid that will be the last nail in their coffin. They are afriad they will end up being the Dodo Party...So, they are frozen by their indecision and lack of courage.

[Donna Zen]

13. Mexed Missages

Milbank seems to have a purpose with this article, although it is difficult to devise what that might be. Quoting Shrum about getting "tuff" is just laughable; quoting Lehane, the man who was hired by Michael Moore, to fight back against the right-wing smears, gets another chuckle. And let's not even discuss Norquist's utterings about dishonesty. Are any of these people credible witnesses to Milbank's message?

And then there is Bill Clinton's admonition to fight back. Well, he did fight the right-wing smears when they were aimed at him. How great would it be us who are fighting the right-wing lies that got us into war if Clinton would quit protecting bush.

So basically, Milbank gathers together some obvious advice--fight back--but provides us with the words of the greatest enemies of the truth. Sorry, if I'm having a problem with this.

[ibegurpard]

15. Indeed

Reading something like this coming from Milbank, all of people, is quite ironic.