It doesn't matter how low GOP numbers go if we offer nothing better.

[leyton]

It's great to see George W. Bush's approval ratings in the low 40's, and of course he's ahead of the Republicans in Congress. But it's not time to start cheering yet. We'll only capitalize on this if we can show the voters that we're a better alternative. Bush wasn't any more popular in November 2004 than he is now, but the country re-elected him because as bad as he was, a majority (though slim) felt that Democrats didn't offer anything better.

I also don't think Bush is going the way of Lyndon Johnson. The war is becoming increasingly unpopular, but Bush has so far held his base together. Johnson saw his party become torn between doves and hawks - but there is no sign that Bush will face the same problem. In the forseeable future, the Republican base (about 35 to 40 percent of the electorate) is going to stand with Bush. Meanwhile, the Democratic party is the one torn over the war. Even though we're not the ones who prosecuted it unsuccessfully, we're the ones who are becoming weaker politically because the party has not unified around a plan of action that we would follow if we took power.

So I think we shouldn't fall into the mindset that because the war is tanking that we'll finally ride to victory in 2006 and 2008 when we didn't in 2004. We have to create our victory - by actually offering a plan to deal with Iraq, to deal with economy, to deal with social security. While we shouldn't soften our rhetoric against Bush, it's time to take the next step and actually figure out what we would do if we took the reins of power. Otherwise, we're just gonna cheer as Bush remains unpopular and then be disappointed when get beat again and again.

[blm]

1. Kerry had plans for that...clear DOABLE plans.

The public won't hear discussion of Democratic plans and alternatives from the broadcast media.

Media's favorite spin is Rove's favorite spin, the "Democrats have no plans." lie.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. Kerry had plans, but they were not presented properly, not even in his

public appearances.

In addition, his plans were not bold enough. His "health care plan" was no plan at all, just a desperate sop to the private insurance industry. His plan for Iraq was to throw more troops at the situation.

This time we need to be bold.

[blm]

7. Your charges are not accurate.

You repeated only what the corporate media spun Kerry's plans into, an unrecognizable derisive soundbite.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. No, I read his website and heard him speak in person twice

He was fine for people who already hated Bush, but there was nothing compelling there to convert someone who was on the fence.

He was a good candidate, but not a great one. A great candidate would have known how to break through the MSM blather and present an image that drew people toward him and not just away from Bush.

We have to watch out for that next time, including in the 2006 races. The candidates have to be attractive (I don't mean physically but emotionally) in their own right, people whom one would vote for even if George W. Bush didn't exist.

[blm]

22. Yeah, a lawmaker who investigated and exposed more govt. corruption than

any other lawmaker in modern history is really an unattractive candidate.

What a pity so many are fooled so easily by rhetoric and not attracted to important, historic ACTIONS.

Thankfully there are plenty of us who DO appreciate and are drawn to complex, intellectual, compassionate and prescient solution seekers. Thankfully, we have Kerry.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. I appreciated him all right, but he didn't campaign well

He never campaigned on his exposure of corruption, for instance.

He never campaigned on the fact that the Bush administration contains nearly the full cast of characters from Iran-Contra.

He campaigned well for the people who read position papers, but not at all well for Joe Sixpack.

A successful candidate can't do the first without doing the second.

For all his faults (and I am not one of his greatest fans), Bill Clinton combined Kerry's brain power with a marvelous ability to communicate with ordinary people.

[blm]

34. And a marvelous ability to let the Bushes off the hook when he wouldn't

allow the revelations of BCCI to be seen by the public and stopped further inquiry because Greenspan asked him to drop it for the sake of the economy.

Clinton should have listened to Kerry...no Bush would ever have been allowed NEAR the WH ever again.

[leyton]

14. He didn't make them clear.

I am still not sure what his position was on Iraq, and I'm still not sure what his plan was. I remember him saying he might want to bring troops home soon - but maybe he might not. If the whole party doesn't get behind a plan and articulate it well, what's the point of having one in the first place?

[blm]

21. Then you were watching corporate media. His plans were exactly what the UN

and our allies needed to justify taking over the mission.

Too many idiot pundits smeared him by saying his position was inexplicable but that was corporate media SPIN.

He was for the IWRESOLUTION. He was for full weapons inspections before any military action. That's why he said many times Bush rushed into war UNNECESSARILY.

People who are foolish enough to blame the IWR, also let Bush off the hook for this war. The IWR would have prevented war at the weapons inspections stage if it had been implemented HONESTLY.

Here's Kerry's statement even from last June on the Senate floor, telling Bush what he SHOULD do as commander-in-chief given the current circumstances at the time.


June 28, 2005


John Kerry Speaks Out on Iraq, Details Concrete Steps President Must Take to Rescue the Mission

John Kerry went to the Senate floor this afternoon to offer a concrete set of steps the President needs to take to rescue the mission in Iraq, get it right, and deal with a series of mistakes that have brought us to this point. The remarks that follow are as prepared.



“Mr. President, tonight President Bush will speak to the nation about the situation in Iraq. And I think we all have a sense of what he’ll say. He’ll talk about the march of democracy and the courage of our troops across the world. He’ll speak with pride about Iraqi elections and the end of tyranny, and stress the importance of fighting terror. And that’s fine - we all agree with that - but those words alone won’t be enough to improve a situation clearly headed in a perilous direction. We need new, strong policy to get it right in Iraq.

“Today, we have no realistic strategy to reduce the risks to our soldiers and achieve our goals. While our military has done a superb job, our civilian leadership has not, and our soldiers are paying the price every day. We need a realistic plan for success.

“To do that, we must tear down the wall of arrogance. When the Vice President absurdly claims the ‘insurgency is in its last throes’ he insults the common sense and intelligence of the American people, and diminishes our stature in the world. And how can we expect the Iraqi people to take us seriously and do their part when the White House says the insurgency is fading, yet they live in constant fear, the explosions waking them up at night, reminding Iraqis of the danger inherent in even the short walk to work or school the next morning.

“While we shouldn’t dwell on mistakes, we need to understand their consequences on our ability to effectively move forward. With allies reading the Downing Street memo, and the American people realizing the rationalization for this war changed midstream, it becomes that much harder to rally the collective strength of the nation and the world to our cause.

“We have to acknowledge the past to overcome it, because the truth is the stubbornness of this Administration matters. It hurts our chances for success. It leads to frustrated expectations at home, makes it so much more difficult for the Iraqi people to embrace this cause, and makes it so much easier for sidelined nations to turn their back on a common interest and say: “OK, it's their deal.”

“And the bottom line is that when it comes to war and the safety of American troops, there is no time for excuses. It’s time for the Administration to tell the truth about what’s happening on the ground and open up to new ideas about how to get the job done.

“Admitting mistakes is a necessary hurdle and a constructive tool for this Administration if it wants to build the strength necessary to get it right in Iraq. Admitting mistakes paves the way for elected officials and the American people to come together to move forward. Admitting mistakes lays the groundwork for a climate of cooperation that allows allies to add to our own strength. Admitting mistakes eases the concerns of the Iraqi people, and helps us make them understand that there will be no success unless they embrace the burden of their own future.

“And that includes acknowledging that Iraq today is something it wasn’t before the war: a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16-20,000 insurgents, and the number of jihadists among them is growing. This is a growing challenge, and we need to take immediate steps to address it. Our officer corps reports that every time our troops kill or capture an insurgent, three more step forward to take his place. That is not a compelling strategy for success.

“So I hope tonight that we hear something new from the President. I hope the President recognizes that the people demand more than a new communications strategy - they demand real leadership and a strategy for success in this war that gets our troops home. If the President does this, he will begin to restore the confidence of the American people and the respect of the world. In showing real leadership, he will make clear to the Iraqi people that it’s time for them to take the lead.

“I also hope the American people understand that there still can be a plan for success in Iraq if we move quickly. The mistakes we have made don’t change the fact that our military is the most powerful in the world, and that democracy is one of the world’s most powerful ideas. The mistakes don’t change the fact that the Iraqi people understand through the powerful memory of generations that they have a unique opportunity to shape their own future. If the President gets serious about getting this right and telling the truth, and the Iraqi people get serious about doing their part and bearing the burden, we can have success in Iraq.

“So what can the President say tonight to get things right in Iraq, and put us on the road to success? The President can start by immediately declaring that the United States does not seek bases or any permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicion of indefinite occupation is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

“Getting it right also means using our overwhelming leverage to get the Iraqis to do their part. Our massive military presence is all that stands between the Iraqi people and complete chaos. Our special forces are protecting Iraqi leaders. With this kind of leverage, it’s shocking that the Administration allowed six months to go by before including Sunnis in the political process. This was an obvious, crucial prerequisite to success, yet there was no sense of urgency, and minimal pressure applied. It’s time for the Administration to use its leverage to insist the Iraqis to do their part, establish a truly inclusive political process, and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding new elections in December.

“Getting it right also means putting together a real plan for the training of Iraqi troops and following through on it. This should be our top priority. It’s the key to getting our troops home and avoiding a humiliating withdrawal. It’s time to move beyond fudging the numbers and finally put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing, which includes ensuring the Iraqi government has the budget necessary to deploy them. It’s also time to stop using the in-country training requirement as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more. Why would we turn down this opportunity to give our troops the relief they deserve?

“Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The Administration’s plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure, and be specifically tied to a defined series of tasks and accomplishments. This plan must be more than dates and numbers - it must make clear to the Iraqi government that American patience is limited.

“The Iraqi people need to understand that in America, when we see Army recruitment suffering, and families organizing to protect their kids from recruiters, and the divorce rate for military officers skyrocketing, we take it very seriously. I know the Iraqi people already understand that our troops are skilled and brave - now they need to understand that we must see legitimate progress that offers a real chance of American troops beginning to come home.

“At the same time, if the Administration really wants to get the Iraqis to bear the burden, they need to move beyond the hollow “stay-as-long-as-it-takes-no-matter-what” talk that provides an endless security blanket - a disincentive for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq - and instead talk forcefully about how to transfer of responsibility. “If the Administration gets this plan right, and the Iraqis succeed in adopting a new Constitution and holding elections as planned, trained Iraqi security forces should be ready to take on more responsibility at the critical moment when support for the insurgency is diminishing. That’s the kind of careful, strategic planning we need to set the stage for American forces to begin to come home as Iraqi security forces assume more of the mission. But, again, this won’t happen if the Iraqi people don’t do their part. We must make the Iraqi government understand that the patience of America is finite, and that real progress must be achieved.

“Mr. President, there’s no question that deploying capable Iraqi security forces is imperative to success. But the Administration would have us believe that Iraqi forces alone could end the insurgency. That’s not enough. And I hope that the President strikes a different tone tonight, and commits to work simultaneously on all fronts - security, economic and political.

“The Administration should know by now that overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq have been a drag on our mission. Reconstruction lags behind even in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north, where security is less of an issue. This sends the wrong message to those we ask to sacrifice for freedom. We need to speed up work in these areas to demonstrate that progress will be made in the rest of Iraq. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being left out in the cold, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, infrastructure being built, and a government of their own choosing being formed, the lure of insurgency will diminish. The violence and risk to our troops will decrease. To get it right in Iraq, we must show all Iraqis that they’re fighting not only for a future of freedom, but for a tangibly improved future for their children.

“Getting it right also means understanding the neighborhood - and getting those with an interest in Iraq, like the Saudis, to act now. Iraq is surrounded by Sunni neighbors with significant resources, yet complaints about being left out fall on deaf ears. They could do so much more to help, and we should encourage them. Even short-term improvements, such as providing electricity from their power grids, or supplying diesel fuel - an offer made yet unfulfilled by the Saudis - will go a long way. But we have to do our part and address their legitimate concerns if we want these nations to step up to the plate and help us secure Iraq’s borders, bring Sunnis into the political process, or rebuild Iraq’s economy and infrastructure. We must offer a coherent strategic plan for regional security. We must address their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent, and their concerns about our sporadic mediation between Israel and the Palestinians. This Administration needs to show that it understands there has to be some give and take. “The Administration could also give a significant boost to the rebuilding effort by recognizing the great untapped potential of private sector contributions. The Administration, working with the Iraqi government, should organize a development conference for Iraqi businessmen and their regional counterparts who wish to invest in Iraq. Regional investment would not only strengthen Iraq’s economy - it would give neighboring governments a greater stake in Iraq’s success, and another incentive to do more to help. And the Administration might want to consider the effect on regional businessmen when they read headlines about Halliburton’s extraordinary dominance of local contracts. “Mr. President, much of what I’ve discussed today, from Administration mistakes to the steps needed to move forward, deal with laying the groundwork for long-term success. But the reality is the elections are six months off. Iraq won’t be rebuilt overnight, and it will take time to get the Iraqi troops ready. In the coming months, even with perfect planning, there will be violence, turmoil and hardship.

“That’s why tonight it’s critical that President Bush makes clear tonight that there are actions we can take in the short-term to ease the burden on our troops. He needs to get this right, not only to save American lives, but to elevate the confidence of the American people. For this to happen, the President must reconsider some hastily brushed-aside options.

“To date, the Administration has been unwilling to entertain the idea of empowered militias, instead singularly focusing on a unified Iraqi security force. But Iraq, like Afghanistan, has numerous tribal, religious and ethnic militias such as the Kurdish peshmerga and the Shiite Badr Army. These forces are structured, and most importantly accepted by provincial populations and capable of providing protection while helping with reconstruction. In the interim, while a fully capable Iraqi security force is established, these forces could meet some of the critical security needs. If they can help do the job, why not let them? It’s time for the Administration to put aside its concerns and prod the Iraqi government to give the militias legitimacy. We can do this by integrating them into a National Guard type force and using them to provide security in their own areas, where they are respected.

“The Administration also needs to get it right on border security if we want to ease the burden on our troops in the short term. The truth is border security has been absent from day one, which is a shame because this is exactly where our allies can help. As opposed to providing security in urban areas, border security is generally less risky for troops. The Administration must work with the Iraqi government to reach out to the world and establish multi-national force to secure Iraq’s borers. Such a force, if sanctioned by the UN Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq’s neighbors, and powerful nations with a vested interest, like India.

“Mr. President, the Administration has narrowed our options in Iraq, but there are still better choices available to us. There is still time to get it right in Iraq, and I hope for the sake of our troops that the President begins to get it right tonight. We are at a critical juncture in this conflict, both at home and abroad, and the last thing we need is the Administration growing even more stubborn or defensive. Today, our nation needs honest leadership and a comprehensive strategy for success. It’s time for the President to reach out and work across the aisle and across the globe to clean up this mess.

“The President must seize this opportunity to move forward, as the next months are so critical to the future of Iraq and our security. If the Administration fails to take the steps available to them - and fails to hold the Iraqis accountable - we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face.

“Every missed step, every measure untaken, every wise course not followed carries an unbearable cost. The American people have a right to expect accountability from their leaders. We need to decrease the risk to our troops and strengthen our chances for success. Our troops deserve better than what they’re getting. They deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.”

[blm]

32. added link if you need more from the campaign period to jog your memory

http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

[Toots]

38. What is the clear concise Republican Plan, if I might ask?

I actually listened to Senator Kerry when he spoke and came away knowing the country would be back in safe hands once again if he were to be elected. I also listened to Governor Dean and felt the same way. Both men offered quite different approaches to governing than Bush* or any other Republican. Maybe you have a suggestion on who IYO can articulate the Democratic message in such a way as to "stir the masses". Maybe I am just a different sort of listener in that I listen to what is being said and not just for some sound-bite.

[clover]

27. that was then. this is now. things have changed and aren't stopping nt

[blm]

30. Post #21

Kerry's Iraq speech from June 28, 2005.

Unfortunately, Iraq has become even worse since then.

Kerry warned last January that the window of opportunity (after the Iraq election) for the US to succeed was getting smaller if Bush didn't change course.

Bush didn't change course.

It would take someone like Kerry going BACK to the world leaders he met last January to come up with another course to address the current scenario.

Y'know, last January, Kerry met with our allies and the region's leaders and wanted to tell Bush personally what they said they would do....Bush REFUSED to meet with him.

That's Bush.

[clover]

31. and isn't bush's refusal to meet with outgoing clinton officials

the REAL story behind this whole "blame clinton for 9-11' thing being floated by the MSM? i recall the clinton administration offering to pass on the torch, providing their assessments, and the bush camp refused! what if bush had met in conference for, say, 3 hours, with the outgoing president? would 9-11 had been prevented? bush's arrogance and paranoia are continuing to put us all in danger.

[Emendator]

36. You're exactly correct

And the leadership of the Democratic party is trying to have it both ways in terms of the war. That won't work. If an antiwar Republican, such as Hagel, breaks through in 2008, and the Democrats go with some Council on Foreign Relations type who supports the war, then the Republicans win. Whoever first fills up the leadership vacuum of the growing antiwar movement will have a huge advantage.

[Mr Rabble]

2. Spot on.

This is perhaps our biggest hurdle.

I remember all the Bush backers saying as much- we dont offer a clear alternative. While I insisted that we did, they obviously didnt hear it.

Our position needs to be clear, concise, said loudly, and repeated often.

Until that happens, dont expect much to change- regardless of *'s numbers.

[acmejack]

5. It involved reading, which was the flaw in the whole plan.

They even had "Our Plan for America", maybe we should have made it into an audio book or a bunch of snappy sound bytes.

[joemurphy]

3. Amen!

[maxsolomon]

4. the GOP offered nothing better in 2000.

and they "won".

reagan beat carter by offering nothing more in the way of "plans" than "its morning in america". he ran on carter's negatives.

making the other guy the worse choice is how american politics works. i wish it wasn't, but it is. idealism doesn't win.

any plan put forward to "solve" any of the crises you mention would only be shredded at interminable length on GOP TV & hate radio. it would serve no point other than to make dems appear out of touch with reality.

[leyton]

16. Reagan won because of a number of reasons.

First of all, Carter was probably doomed once he was challenged in the primary. That's more evidence of what I'm saying - our party is split between two wings (centrist-hawk and liberal-dove) while the Republicans are unified.

Second of all, Reagan was riding the conservative tide. If I'm not mistaken it was clear that he was offering what Goldwater offered in 1964 - smaller government that shifts power back to the states. Hell, I wasn't even alive then and I can tell you that I know what Reagan and Goldwater were offering. So I think it's fair to say that by 1980 the Republicans had offered the United States an alternative plan (the conservative vision) and that while Carter's weakness may have contributed to his landslide loss, it was not the only factor.

Third of all, did we not do our best to make Bush the worse choice in 2004? And here we are, in his second term. I posit that if we continue to rely on vilifying him as you propose and ignore the fact that we need to offer a better alternative, we will not fare well in 2006.

[maxsolomon]

24. "we" may have done our best, but our nominee did not.

he was respectful. he tried to debate on the issues. he didn't call bullshit on bush's posturing.

he got killed on image. he never responded to the swiftboat smears. i found myself screaming "fight back!".

if you think that the dems will have unified, exciting, viable NEW ideas to solve intractable problems by the 2006 campaign, the most polite thing i can say is: i salute your optimism.

[blm]

35. Kerry DID his job and decisively won all 3 debates. The failures in 2004

were in the other important match ups.

The DNC got killed by the organized crime unit of the RNC. Whenever they were on tv, the RNC rep always stayed on point and did their hammering, while the DNC rep was almost always on the defensive, thanks to the media bias protective of Bush.

The left leaning pundits and writers were left in the dust by the RW pundits and writers who stayed on the same page and never let up the pressure on Kerry, even though they were spewing lies. The left, for the most part, could never have the discipline it takes to be on the same page and hammer points home, even when they have the truth on their side.

And even still, Kerry DID win. With the broadcast media stacked up against him and in full protective mode of Bush, Kerry still won.

If Kerry hadn't done such a damn good job, then BushInc wouldn't have had to go into action suppressing votes and rigging electronic voting machines.

[maxsolomon]

39. the kerry campaign let the swiftboats run wild

mary beth lost that fight. and that fight defined the election as sure as willie horton defined 88.

[blm]

40. You just made my point. The SV liars were an outside group.

Who did they outmatch? The left group who was working to tell the truth about Bush being awol from service.

Bush never took on his desertion and never personally fought back. He didn't NEED to. The RNC and their media machine had the discipline to stay on the same page. The DNC and those left leaning media types weren't getting the truth out in any systematic way.

When DNC and left pundits were matched with their RW counterparts, the RW always managed to score with lies over the left's truth defensive.

Kerry won his one on one match up with Bush all three times, and he did so DECISIVELY because he had to...the media was way ready to protect Bush at all costs.

Kerry's decisive wins left them unable to spin, even...so, they IGNORED some of the most egregious statements, like when Kerry attacked Bush for saying he was unconcerned about Usama, and Bush lied and said he never said that. The media protected Bush by not hammering him for that COLOSSAL LIE.

Still, Kerry won, and Bush needed to suppress the vote and rig the machines to maintain power.

[maxsolomon]

41. the swiftboats weren't "outside"

they were concieved of and run by the bush campaign, & rove specifically. they were only nominally "independent". it was the centerpiece of their smear strategy, along with framing bill burkett & "liberal" CBS for the false TANG documents.

my only point is that mary beth cahill never fought back until the smear stuck.

i agree with you on the rest.

[blm]

43. Well WE know that, but the way it was played in the media was that they

were independent. Believe me, I know FULL well that they couldn't have done it without the full complicity and protection of the broadcast media.

[Emendator]

37. He also won

in 1980 because he offered an alternative plan for economic growth and it worked, hence his repeat landslide win in 1984, and Bush's minor landslide in 1988. The electorate was not fooled. Until the Democrats displace the Republicans as the pro-growth party, they are at a big disadvantage. Growth must precede redistribution.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. We're the opposition.

For now, utterly and completely destroying Republican credibility is our only job.

During the next campaign, our candidates can highlight their differences of approach, but in recent elections Republicans have amply demonstrated that issues and policy are only tangentially relevant to winning.

Define your opponent. Mike Gallagher and Larry Northern should be the face of the new Republican party.

[Cary]

9. Never forget that all politics are local.

It has to start from the bottom and then go up.

[leyton]

17. We do need a stronger bench.

We need to have good, solid Democrats with potential all the way down to city council. The fewer really strong Governors and state legislators and Congresspeople we have, the fewer really strong Senators and Presidents we can offer.

[kentuck]

10. What you say has a lot of merit...

If the Democrats don't offer somethimg to vote for, the Repubs will find a way to sell their positions as successful and helpful to the American economy.

[bribri16]

11. As long as we don't offer the SAME, it's better. n/t

[Lexingtonian]

12. imho, you're missing the forest for all the trees.

but the country re-elected him because as bad as he was, a majority (though slim) felt that Democrats didn't offer anything better

If you actually bother to go beyond local anecdote and right wing noise machine obloquy/shame/excuses/rationalizations, there were only two rationales on which Bush got elected last November. One was social issues/fears, the other 'handling terrorism'.

Indies left him and Republicans on social issues when (a) gay marriage proved an imaginary social problem, on Massachusetts clearly showing no negative social consequences of any kind from it all, and (b) Republicans jumped over to the Schiavo thang and abused the hell out of it. Polling on social issue support went from 57% (Indies and Republicans) to 38% (only Republicans).

'Handling terrorism' is more complicated, but every major attack by Al Qaeda maxes out support within a political demographic and then collapses it with them. '9/11' had everyone support Bush and then hardline Democrats gave up on him in the aftermath- he peaked to 92% and fell off to 68%. The Madrid bombings spiked Bush up to the 68% ceiling, then moderate Democrats left him on the policy. The London bombings spiked Bush to his 57% ceiling, now the policy is 49%- a bit more than half of Indies left him, no longer trusting in his (magic-based) policy/actions. The next major Al Qaeda bombing will spike Bush to 49% nationally, then predictably collapse his policy rating (and with it his polling 'ceiling') to 38%.

Johnson saw his party become torn between doves and hawks - but there is no sign that Bush will face the same problem.

The outward signs are not the same, not as overt and public, but moderate Republicans and hardline Republicans are reaching their breaking points with each other. The issues are pretty predictable and in the making. The outward sign is the emotionalism with which Republicans are acting- the increasingly thin confidence in each other, the way their discourse with each other is, well, stupid.

If you follow the subpollings, moderate and hardline Republicans do have fundamental disagreements over which they do split despite appearances and moderate milquetoastishness. And these on the issues working themselves onto the national agenda.

economic: the AMT. upward adjustment (moderate) vs abolition (hardline)
social: upholding Roe v Wade. upholding (moderate) vs overturning (hardline)
ethics/leadership: support for Tom DeLay. discarding (moderate) vs retaining (hardline)
diplomacy: British leaving the 'Coalition'. critical to success in Iraq (moderate), not critical (hardline)
military/Iraq: the "freedom" selling point. critical to achieve or it was all worthless (moderate), don't actually care (hardline)
terrorism: as describe above. One or two major Al Qaeda attacks, and moderate Republicans give up on the Bush/hardline approaches entirely.

+++

In general, you seem to think there's a "marketplace of ideas" on which Democratic and Republican ideas and/or posturings are competing at the moment. I'm not a believer in that- at the moment Republicans have a monopoly. The best way to ruin a monopoly is to let it run its course with the people it purports to serve.

In fact, putting a viable competitor in the market at the moment is a bad move, allowing the debate to shift from the merits (i.e. lack thereof) of the existing dominant product to the merits of a minor one.

What you really want, in effect, is tacitly small c conservative- you don't want to actually see political conservatism and Right political culture fully defeated. You don't actually want to see them fully selfdestruct in the political arena. You're actually trying to save them, keep them viable.

You're right that Democrats do have to step up at some point. But that point is not now, and the policy positions to take are going to be obvious once the Rightist ones are discredited. As it is, too many Democrats are still convinced of the Rightist ones (see Lieberman and such on Iraq) to take the oppositional ones at this point anyway.

I don't see the reason for the anxiety you express. Then again, the Right wing's auto da fe is fine with me- I have no problem with the Republican Party utterly discrediting itself, I think Democrats are going to be capable (if just barely) to take over governance next year. I think it's 1966 and 1968ish stuff- Republicans then were just as disjointed and had been out of power for as long, inept and poorly run and unused to wielding power. It took them a couple more years to become the power apparatus that Nixon made of it. Like 1966/68, the essential story now is the Party dominant for ~35 years running out of time, electorate, and the fundamental political rationale in American history it ran on for that time.

That rationale, for Nixon Republicanism, was to stall social evolution toward a Modern society for as long as possible/reasonable. That stalling is no longer effective or relevant or as necessary; adapting to rather than resisting Modernity is becoming inevitable. The Republican Party is the (supposedly) Unmoveable Object facing the mythical Irresistable Force; either Modernity (the Force) cracks or the GOP's hold on power does. It's the 'faith-based' community versus 'reality-based' community as a social dynamic. One side is going to win this, and I know how I'm going to bet. Of course, a peace follows on the war; re-moderation and compromise and accommodation of (and, recovery of power by) the defeated is going to be inevitable. But first we have to go over the last defenses at Petersburg and force the surrender at Appomattox to end the war itself. It's simply not going to end in armistice.

[leyton]

19. But we will have to put up candidates, and soon.

2006 is not that far away, and then it's off to Iowa and New Hampshire. If we wait around too long to develop our message and our plans, then we risk losing our opportunity to do so at all. I would love for us to be able to wait until August and September of 2008 before coming out with our plan for governing this country, but by then our candidate will be under such heavy fire in the form of character assassinations that he or she will not have as much opportunity to articulate that plan as he or she would like. I'll bet John Kerry wasn't planning on fighting back the Swift Boaters in August, I'll bet he was planning on pushing his message. But because the Democratic party didn't have a firm and consistent message from the beginning of 2004, people ended up not knowing what sort of President Kerry would be. And we lost.

And I am not so sure that they are going to self-destruct. If the Republican party falls apart in the next four years, I will eat these words and throw a party. But so far I think it's in a lot better shape than the Democrats, and they've shown that they can be a lot more disciplined.

[Lexingtonian]

20. What needs so much developing?

I can't figure out what these policy positions and 'plans' are that need so much attention. Just getting enough intelligent and flexible people running will do, the deterioration of the positions Republicans are stuck with will make it obvious enough what the adequate or excellent counterstance is. Next spring will be just fine- we'll easily have the outline of where to go and why. If Democrats bother to be systematic and coordinated about it, that is, rather than each candidate trying to go it alone.

I don't what your deal is with the Swift Boat crap; Kerry's people simply found in focus groups that a painful lot of people of that generation prefer the Swift Boaters delusional idea/myth about Vietnam, found the reality hard to bear. Losing in Vietnam was too hard on their egos. Kerry couldn't stand on the full reality of Vietnam and recover those voters. That's why the Kerry campaign didn't try very hard, but the miscalculation at the Democratic Convention it revealed remains too painful and important to admit.

As for the "people ended up not knowing what sort of President Kerry would be" that's nonsense too, politically speaking. First of all, you never do have real deep certainty about the fellow you're voting for- it's always a guess. The question is what you associate the fellow with. Let me suggest that Kerry wasn't the Unknown, he was the Not Conservative. He was the representative of the Modern to The People despite efforts by him and the Party in a general way to softpedal that (assigned) role and the distinction involved. People afraid of or averse to the Modern, and that was what defined the '04 campaign, didn't know or didn't want to articulate this- it came out as diffuse and vehement negativity about Kerry. The diffuse nature of the policy difference was "confusing" to people, but in the big picture that wasn't as important as people pretended it to be. The media post-Election analyses tried to understand the outcome in the ways Republicans suggested it to them- which was all inadequate categorizations, if not pure crap. Why Democrats buy into their way of (mis)reading the election is beyond me.

The way Republicans fall apart looks a bit different from the way Democrats do in a similar situation. They become psychotically incoherent, not painfully searching and dissolutely full of recrimination. But they look a lot alike, too. I suggest looking at 1993-94 as a comparison- that time was a lot like now. Desultory, dreary, annoying, off point, ideologically claustrophobic, obsolete without the word occurring to anyone. The opposition didn't have clear resonance with The People either. The 1994 elections were lost by Democrats on Election Day by enough Democrats staying home. The 1994 elections became a Republican victory by Gingrich seizing it as a personal mandate, as license for radical efforts by individual Republicans -and all they cajol along with them as cannon fodder and trench fill.

[leyton]

23. My point about SWB is that they bogged him down.

While Kerry could have been trying to articulate what he stood for, he was instead bogged down by false character attacks. That will happen again in 2008, which is why can't wait till August or September of 2008 to let people know what we stand for. That's my "deal."

You seem to have a lot of faith that once enough GOP shit hits the fan, the alternatives will be clear. Perhaps you are correct, but it's a matter of timing. The point of my original post is that we have to offer an alternative, as opposed to just railing against the incompetence of the Bush Administration.

[rniel]

15. Most democrats voted for this war

And there's not that many that would do much different except try to get more allies. That's not a very strong stance. that's wishy washy.

HOW ABOUT GETTING THE FUCK OUT OF THERE NOW!!! I don't see democrats wanting this. I think if they did they would increase their electability. Or am I wrong.

[Larkspur]

25. Not true. Most House Dems voted AGAINST the war and 21 Dem senators

that's nearly half of the Dem senators, voted AGAINST the war. The pro-war Dems are in the MINORITY.

[gulliver]

18. We need to offer a vision of hope.

Umberto Eco wrote in The Name of the Rose, "The faith a movement proclaims doesn't count; what counts is the hope it offers." We need to offer real hope. Kerry's plans, Dem plans, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Plans come after you have the peoples' attention. For that, you need hope.

Fear is another thing we should feel free to cut loose on. Mehlman is already at it innoculating his party against the fear that the war is a catastrophe. He is trying to sell that fear as a Democratic concoction. But it is a real, justified fear, and no one created it but Bush. The people need to sweat and they deserve to be given the awful truth about Bush's Folly.

Real fear. Real hope. It has to be obvious. Plans, as such, don't work.

[rodeodance]

26. see Sen Feingold proposal to withdraw troops--here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2017515&mesg_id=2017515

[meow2u3]

28. This is what the Bush Crime Family wants you to think

They sic the Republican Smear Machine on Democrats so they can trick the public into thinking Democrats have no clear alternative.

Brudder (or sister), you've been punk'd!

[clover]

29. Convene Now

it is our responsibilty to work with the young leaders within our chosen party, setting high standards as we help to educate younger ones about the democratic processes, and to create WITH THEM written record of our party's guiding principles,

must the Democratic party wait to discuss its platform? is there a law prohibiting convening outside of an election year?

[LittleClarkie]

42. It doesn't matter if we offer something better

if no one is going to notice, even folks on our own side. Agenda anyone?