Not really JK related, but still

[Mass]

I have the feeling that we are seeing more and more why the Democrats dont really get any traction right now, even while most people are fed up with Bush.

It is clear that the party lacks somebody who can lead the fight, both at the Senate level and generally speaking. The House is doing well with Pelosi. We have heard Congresspeople everywhere with a critical message against Bush and his administration. However, Pelosi does not have a profile high enough to do that, I think.

In the Senate, for whatever reasons, nobody emerges as a credible spokeperson. I have read rumors that it is because Reid is afraid to be made irrelevant by that and he is keeping a tight hand on the issue. I have also read that this is due to the fact that there are too many potential presidential candidates. I dont know if it is true, but, whether it is or not, it seems clear to me that this is not working.

I had hoped for a while that Kerry would take this role, but it seems clear after this week that, for whatever reasons, he has chosen to work in the background (how frustrating this is). I dont know, but I hope that very soon, somebody will become a credible voice for the Senate and the party in the outside world (the one who does not read the blogs, that is). But Reid does not do it for me, and you barely see Durbin anymore than Kerry these days.

Sorry for the rant, but I have been too frustrated these last days not to hear a rational but still pertinent debate in the outside world. I guess this was triggered by watching Scarborough using the FEMA debate to push for a private, faith-based FEMA rather than the govt. They are too abstute using our arguments against us and nobody on the other side (Reid calling Bush out for being in vacations is barely the issue - they dismantling the govt institutions during these last 4 years is).

[TayTay]

1. This is a very delicate thing to do

Remember, the problem with this response is that aid is not getting to those who need it in a timely manner. Anyone who steps up and starts to talk about this has to keep the focus away from themselves and on the victims. ("Rule # 1: It's not about you, it's about the citizens in peril.) This is a very delicate balancing act. Stepping up means inviting media scrutiny which will, inevitably, lead to the questions that begin, "Well, how would you have handled this differently." There is no answer to that. (It's tempting, but honestly, there is no answer to that hypothetical question.)

Sen. Kerry and all the other Dems need to be united in their response and emphasize their very excellent legislative points that offer real aid for the victims of the hurricane. This is what they should be doing.

What would one man (or woman) in the minority party do by speaking up now? Seriously, we are all upset over this, but what, realistically, do you want Kerry to do? He doesn't run FEMA, he doesn't control the NG or the military, he doesn't have an oversight ability at the moment. His best chance, and the best chance of the Dems, is to find some sane solutions that offer relief. Delaying the bankruptcy bill, getting the red tape out of the applications for government services and making sure that the fiscal incentives offered to evacuees are there is the best they can realistically do.

[Mass]

2. I need a dem to explain that this is NOT just FEMA

It is what the Republicans want to do, not just Bush's incompetence, but the result of a plan and policies that were thought and executed.

There are two different issues at stake here:
- helping these people (I agree the Dems are doing that well),

- denouncing the destruction of our institutions as a political decision and not just incompetence (Go to Norquist : drowning the govt in a glass of water ). This needs to be said again and again. It is not a question of doing something differently. It is definitively a question of ideological choices and priorities. We are all in peril here. Tomorrow, it could be an ecological disaster in NJ, a LNG tanker in Boston, ... and the same thing would happen because of ideological choices this govt has made to keep the govt small. Bush being in vacation is a symptom of the crisis this country is, not the cause.

If we do not do the second, we will have another Bush in power, just a little more inept (remember Reagan).

I am sorry, but I am more and more fedup with good people keeping silent on what they know. Nothing will ever change if they dont stand up and call things for what they are.

NOTE: I was agreeing with you until a few days ago. Now, we see all the right wingers run with the FEMA argument to push their agenda and slowly getting away with it (It is not the agenda that is bad, it is the guy and if they can dump the guy (Brown and if necessary Bush) to push the agenda, so be it. It is more and more obvious.

[TayTay]

3. Consider a proper response

Mass - you are anticipating a political response. This is proper. Where do you want this to go? By law, the Rethugs control the government. The Democrats are exerting what influence they can to get the Rethugs to:

cancel their stupid plan to cut more taxes for the rich
cancel their plans to gut social security
cancel their plans to cut medicaid and other programs for the poor
cancel their plans to gut FEMA response and make the agency even more ineffective than it already is.

This is truth and reality now. Those programs are likely dead. Victory for the Dems who spoke out. And this is 'not nothing.'

Now we need some positives for the party that is out of power, controls nothing, has little say in what happens and is capable only, at this point, of loud opposition.

Legislation to delay the bankruptcy bill as it pertains to people affected by this disaster
Legislation to cut government red tape and allow hurricane victims to apply for and get government relief

The Republicans told us this year, again and again, that 'elections have consequences.' We have now seen what they meant by that. Elections do indeed have consequences and the American people do not like what they have seen. The Democrats have to unite for '06 and show the voters that their way is better.

[Mass]

4. I agree with you,

but, they need to spell it out, tie all that together if they want to get some traction (IMHO, at least).

Here is the Norquist quote (I am sure you know it, but it spells out very clearly what has happened).

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010514/dreyfuss

To Norquist, who loves being called a revolutionary, hardly an agency of government is not worth abolishing, from the Internal Revenue Service and the Food and Drug Administration to the Education Department and the National Endowment for the Arts. "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

[TayTay]

5. But this is not a job for one person.

This is a job of defining, or redefining if you like, the Democratic Party.

Sigh! This is not actually true. I agree with the John Kerry who told the people in Seattle last month that we don't need two Republican parties and that Democrats already kow what they believe in, they have to shout these beliefs out. But there are always some who will say, falsely, that this is repositioning the party. Sigh! Such is the world and the state of the press.

The press conference was a good start. Having Leibermann go on Lehrer New Hour and excuse the REthugs from having a real accountability hearing is very bad. He needs to be told that if continues this, the Party will cut him off from all support. He is undermining the effort. (See, it's not that easy to do this.)

[Mass]

6. I guess we basically agree.

[beachmom]

7. If Lieberman was an Independent, what he is saying is okay

I guess, I don't think of Lieberman as a Dem anymore, but an Independent. If he ends up coming out with a scathing criticism of the * admin., then there will be more credibility to it than if it came from, say, Ted Kennedy. As a Dem, yeah, Lieberman is a disappointment, but on the other hand, he represents (nationwide) a certain segment of the population that can't stand partisan bickering. I don't have a problem with him existing (if you will), but he is certainly not "on message" with the Party leadership (ask Repubs what they think of McCain, and it's like Lieberman).

If we were a parliamentary style government, then indeed, we would have a spokesperson who would struggle and gain power in the party. But because of our separation of powers, that doesn't work here. So everybody has bridged out to the leader they like. It's just not going to happen until 2007 when the primary season starts. Let's face it -- there is a power vaccuum in the Dem party, and since no one in the Dem party HAS power, it really is a free for all. In that sense, I am pessimistic. There is too much infighting for true unity and that's what's so discouraging. Kerry has made the netroots his "kingdom", which only time will tell how it works out. However, it is the biggest unreported story of the year. Someone mentioned that his list of 3 million e-mail addresses has grown to 5 million, and they come from all over the country. Since it's mostly under the radar, I think there is a quiet power to it, because everyone can "talk" to him, unfiltered by the cynical media. He is smart to concentrate on '06 instead of sound bites today. Getting ELECTED is all that matters in a democracy. Media manipulation would be nice, too. Hopefully, someone's working on that.

[karynnj]

10. I am interested in seeing how real the netroots are too

(I love your word.) When I was called by the NJ Democrats after I volunteered because of a Kerry email, the coordinator was saying that they had gotten many positive comments about Kerry's emails. I actually will be volunteering starting Monday. It will be interesting seeing who the active people support. Hillary is from the next state and NJ polls actually showed Lieberman in the lead even after NH (then, Kerry took the lead like everywhere) - but we have a useless June primary.

This county is also interesting in following the old money Republicans - some of whom appeared to have voted Kerry last year. I was shocked that there were as many Kerry stickers as Bush stickers on parent's cars at a local prep school. The seniors' and teachers' cars were overwhelmingly Kerry. There are some good questions, was the switch based on Bush's incompetence, dishonesty, RW agenda, Religious agenda, Kerry's obvious intelligence and pragmatic answers or something entirely different. Which R/D combinations keep these people?

At this point, I'm just glad to be able to volunteer because I still feel I should have done more last year - although it was the first year I did anything since 1972 and Kerry did win NJ. Corzine should be an easy win. The Republicans are trying to smear him - he forgave a former girl friend, who heads a large union that represents some state workers, a large loan given when they were dating after they broke up. He actually reported it and there were no laws broken - the local paper's comment was "he's a very desirable boyfriend".

The reason the Republicans threw this out was to try to hide Forrester's scandal. NJ law prohibits NJ insurance companies (and several other type of companies) from contributing to campaigns. Forrester essentially self financed his primary bid via his insurance company which he claims is DC based. All he has in DC is a PO box. His company is one of the drug card companies.

NJ politics has more than its share of corruption. I wish that Corzine would have let our current Governor run. He took over after McGeevey resigned in an emotional speech disclosing he was gay. McGreevy was also corrupt and had attempted to place the guy as NJ's homeland security head - although he had no credentials other than being Israeli. Having Cody as governor has been a relief. he actually seems good and has high approval ratings. The Republicans are still trying to run on Trenton being corrupt.

[sandnsea]

8. I don't know either

But yes, we need someone out there. As usual, it seems it's a fight between Bill's legacy, Hillary's centrism, Lieberman's right wing, Howard's ranting, the far left, and everybody else. Leaving no clear message out of the Senate. It is damned frustrating and I'm fed up with it too.

How in the world do you watch Scarborough. I'd have broken 2 or 3 televisions in the last year.

[Mass]

9. I dont usually

I just watched the clip on crooksandliars.com. I dont have cable.

[ginnyinWI]

11. well I don't know, but

As long as all of our Congressional Dems are working hard at their jobs, trying to enact legislation to help the hurricane victims, and as long as the media is showing the incompetence of the administration (for once)--maybe the one Dem who can and should speak for all of them is our DNC chair, Howard Dean?

I don't know if that makes sense or not--it's just my idea of a logical choice.

[TayTay]

12. That's Dean's job

to be out front and express the Democratic message. (And to say things that elected Dems can't because it's not a good idea.)