A must-read article

[ProSense]

It's about time the Democrats get credit.

Not as Lame as You Think
Democrats learn the art of opposition.

By Amy Sullivan

The first week of March should have been a bright spot for Democrats in an otherwise bleak five years. With the president's approval numbers reaching Nixon-esque lows, and Democrats outpolling Republicans by 15 points—the party's largest lead in a midterm election since 1982—it was beginning to look like the long-suffering Democrats had rediscovered their mojo.

But you wouldn't know it if you picked up a newspaper that week. “For Democrats, Many Verses, but No Chorus,” declared the headline on The New York Times' front page on Monday. Reporting that “Democratic candidates for Congress are reading from a stack of different scripts these days,” political writer Adam Nagourney described targeted local campaign strategies as “scattershot messages” that “reflect splits within the party.” The next day, The Washington Post featured a story that declared, “Democrats Struggle to Seize Opportunity,” and questioned whether congressional Democrats could regain power without “the hard-charging, charismatic figurehead that Gingrich represented for the House GOP in 1994.” Picking up that theme on Wednesday, Slate's Jacob Weisberg lambasted Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and Howard Dean, calling them “The Three Stooges” and indicting them as “useless and disastrous.” And as if on cue, the Republican National Committee released a web video on Friday titled “Find the Democratic Leader.”

Snip…

If you read the press coverage of the story, you would have thought the issue surfaced on its own. In fact, however, the story was a little grenade rolled into the White House bunker by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). No one was aware of the port deal until Schumer—who had been tipped off by a source in the shipping industry—held a press conference, and another, and another until the press corps finally paid attention. As for Schumer, he popped up in news reports about the deal, but almost always as a “critic of the administration,” not as the initiator of the entire episode.

Some completely ignored the fight Democrats put up, the timely release of the IG report that Kerry requested last year, and his block that led to the withdrawal of the nomination of former Dubai executive David Sanborn.

From the article:

This is not a lone example. In the winter of 2005, Bush unveiled his Social Security privatization plan, the domestic centerpiece of his second term. The president invested a tremendous amount of personal political capital in the effort, featuring it in his 2005 State of the Union address and holding carefully choreographed town meetings to simulate public support for the idea.

Most of the press corps expected the debate to be a painful defeat for Democrats. Not only were moderates predicted to jump ship and join with Republicans to support the president's plan, but Social Security—one of the foundational blocks of the New Deal social compact—would be irrevocably changed. But then a funny thing happened. Reid and Pelosi managed to keep the members of their caucuses united in opposition. Day after day they launched coordinated attacks on Bush's “risky” proposal. Without a single Democrat willing to sign on and give a bipartisanship veneer of credibility, the private accounts plan slowly came to be seen by voters for what it was: another piece of GOP flimflam.

As the privatization ship began sinking, Republicans challenged Democrats to develop their own plan, and when none was forthcoming, pundits whacked the minority party for being without ideas. But not putting forth a plan was the plan. It meant that once the bottom fell out on public support for Bush's effort—which it did by early summer—Democrats couldn't be pressured to work with Republicans to form a compromise proposal. It was a brilliant tactical maneuver that resulted in a defeat at least as decisive as the Republicans' successful effort to kill Clinton's health-care plan.

One reason many were unable to appreciate the brilliance of Democrats' Social Security strategy was that they view Reid and Pelosi as ineffective party spokespeople, and therefore ineffective leaders. Reid, with his slight frame and round glasses, looks like he should be running a mercantile in the Old West, not a major political party. Even Democrats find themselves wincing when Pelosi appears on camera, perpetually wide-eyed and on-message, whatever the message may be. Neither has Gingrich's charisma, strategic vision, or propensity to quote Clausewitz. And that leads reporters to airbrush their tactical successes out of news reports.

I watched catch C-SPAN’s coverage of the Democratic Policy Committee’s Social Security forum at Pace University. That entire tour was an excellent rebuttal to Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme. It was a thrill to watch Kerry and the others passionate speeches. Here is a release about the event

Democrats Set Out on “Fix It, Don’t Nix It” Social Security Tour
Friday, March 4, 2005

Senators Highlight Commitment to Strengthening Social Security During Town Halls Across America

New York, NY – Highlighting their commitment to strengthening Social Security, Democratic Senators today set-out on the two-day, four-city “Fix It, Don’t Nix It” tour across the United States. Led by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND), the tour will allow the Senators to hear directly from the American people.

Over the next two days, the Senators will convene Democratic Policy Committee Social Security forums in New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Las Vegas. In each city, they will talk with local citizens about the Social Security debate and how Democrats want to fix the program.

The three lead Senators were joined in New York by host Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator John Kerry (D-MA), and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who also attended in Philadelphia.

http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=232855

From the Sullivan article:

Democrats aren't shying away from quixotic fights, either. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduces an amendment to rename the FY2006 budget bill the “Moral Disaster of Monumental Proportion” Act. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) continues his one-man oversight operation, exposing the ineffectiveness of federally-funded abstinence-only programs, investigating taxpayer-funded propaganda, and detailing the failure of Iraq reconstruction efforts. A new 527 organization called the Senate Majority Project, started by former Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan, gets under the skin of several GOP senators in its first week of existence by publicly questioning their ethics (Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) took to the Senate floor to defend himself against the group).

Frank Lautenberg is great!


From the article:

The irony of Republicans calling her report about their ethics lapses unethical amused Slaughter, but it wasn't over. A few weeks later, the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) issued a crowing press release claiming that Nancy Pelosi had removed Slaughter's report from her leadership website because of GOP pressure. Staff for both Slaughter and Pelosi got a chuckle out of the release because they knew the website simply automatically rotated the items featured on the homepage. But liberal bloggers jumped at the bait. To them, it was proof of Democratic cowardice. Using the NRCC release as his source, Matt Stoller at MyDD.com complained about Democratic “knuckling-under.” David Sirota went further, writing: “(T)he House Democratic Leadership publicly pee(d) down its leg in knee-shaking fright, removing a major report on Republican corruption from its website. Why? Because they feared the GOP would yell at them about it.”

Here is the key: people, aided by the media, are pretending the Bush administration, an administration known for its secrecy, deception and illegal activities, is imploding. The reality is that none of what we know is being revealed by Republicans or the media, it's just not happening. The GOP even tries to take credit for the criticism. They tried to do it for the Dubai deal, domestic spying and every issue that has come under public scrutiny.

Dem: Wiretap inquiry a ruse to aid Wilson

By James W. Brosnan
Scripps Howard News Service
February 23, 2006

WASHINGTON - The top Democrat on the House intelligence committee says the White House is letting Rep. Heather Wilson claim progress in an investigation of warrantless eavesdropping to help the Albuquerque Republican in her re-election race.

Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, charged in a press release that the White House has yet to come through with briefings on the program that Wilson announced Feb. 8 as forthcoming.

"What's worrisome is that the White House remains focused on two political objectives - first to allow Republicans in tight congressional races, such as Rep. Heather Wilson, to claim credit for `progress,' and second, to allow Republican Chairman Pat Roberts to block a bipartisan vote in the Senate Intelligence Committee on a full investigation of the program.

"These political agendas are not surprising," Harman continued, "given Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove's vow to make the NSA program a partisan wedge issue in the 2006 election."

more...

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_national_government/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19861_4490340,00.html

Links to original article and on DU:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0605.sullivan1.html#byline


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2568989&mesg_id=2568989



Of course, the "buts" are already being posted. But, an issue with a particular comment, action or individual (or two) aside, so friggin what? Give credit where credit is due. JMO.

[ProSense]

1. Oh the irony! Who would have thought it?

Found this posted in GD-P:

Drilling the Wild
A voracious energy policy afflicts our public lands.

by Ted Kerasote

Rod and gun in hand, and backing the Second Amendment right to own firearms, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have won the hearts of America’s sportsmen. Yet the two men have failed to protect outdoor sports on the nation’s public lands. With deep ties to the oil and gas industry, Bush and Cheney have unleashed a national energy plan that has begun to destroy hunting and fishing on millions of federal acres throughout the West, setting back effective wildlife management for decades to come.

more...

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/conservation/article/0,13199,489794,00.html

[TayTay]

2. That is a movement that is very much up for grabs right now.

A lot of hunters are fierce environmentalists. They spend a lot of time outdoors and can see, firsthand, what is going on with protected areas, with wildlife and with developments taking over wild areas.

Dems need to speak to these groups. They are very open to honest talk. The Rethugs have tried to make all discussions with hunters about the 'right to bear arms.' There is a lot more to it than that for a significant share of these good folks. They should be asked to the table for inclusive talks.

[ProSense]

3. That was made

clear during the Cheney incident. Quite a few criticisms of him showed up on sites focused on the environment. Als F&S did that brilliant interview with Kerry during the campaign. A lot of people try to make the discussion about the right to bear arms.

[karynnj]

4. Too bad Cheney's and Kerry's repective hunting trips weren't

a few years before the election. They make an incredible contrast.

CHENEY
Where: On a ranch owned by a wealthy
Who: Various lobbyists, male and female

Hunting: Getting in cars to be driven to
large groups of birds that they
shot at with no concern about
the number shot

non-bird: One human
Any dogs: None mentioned

Non-hunting: After shooting lawyer, Cheney fixed himself
a cocktail


KERRY

Where: In a cabin in a rustic area

Who: A VN crew mate, long term male friends

Hunting: Woke up early in the morning, walked
to blinds, shot enough birds that all
could take them home to eat.

Hunting
non-bird: none

Any dogs: Kerry's dog helped

Non-hunting: The night before they made dinner,
watched a game on a small tv drank
some beer.



Compiled from memory because I couldn't find thread with Kerry hunting story. I realize now that this, rather than what I did write would have been the best response to David Brooks' hotel comparisons. Although I hate the idea of hunting, one of these is a wholesome, regular guy, short vacation, the other a degenerate, troubling vacation.

[sandnsea]

6. I emailed F&S in November

Saw a similar article and went a little ape shit. The response here, that says "thanks for the nice note" is definitely tongue in cheek. The rest, well don't judge these folks too quickly.

Thanks for the nice note. I am in full agreement. I don’t where you got the impression I ever supported Bush, but I have not supported a Republican since Ronald Reagan sold weapons to the Hezbelloh Shiites that killed my fellow Marines in Beirut in 1983. I took vacation this year to work on the Kerry campaign. Nope, I have never supported Bush . . . .

Dave

[ProSense]

5. Another eureka moment!

Actually, it's another Bush sucks moment.

Outmoded concept of ‘manliness’ sets stage for protection racket
By Ellen Goodman | Comments(0)

For those who have ever wondered when a promise of protection becomes a protection racket, this is your moment.

We now have the forced admission that in 2003 George W. Bush himself approved the leaking of classified intelligence gathered before the Iraq War. He didn’t let it all leak out. He authorized a trickle of information buttressing his case that Saddam Hussein had been a nuclear threat.

Information that had already been discredited.

After manipulating this faucet of fear, the president then defended the war in the name of national security, casting himself as the country’s father-protector. In short, he sold himself as the person we needed to protect us from the fear he provoked. Welcome to the protection racket.

And lest you forget, his re-election campaign was run by the same racketeers. George W. was transformed from a conservative who was compassionate to a commander in chief who was unflappable. John Kerry was accused of the unmanly crime of nuance and caricatured as flip-floppable.

We were subjected to an endless strongman debate with Arnold Schwarzenegger leading the attack on “girlie men.”

Snip...

There’s something to be learned in the Bush debacle. Beware the call of the old manliness. Beware the man who ramps up the danger and offers himself as hero and security blanket. And beware the leader whose unwavering, unflappable, unnuanced and unjustified confidence in the face of risk becomes our disaster.

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/04/14/opinion/opinion/doc443f18f0a45f9118592868.txt

[MonteLukast]

7. What a beautiful article. Thank you, ProSense.

I'm copying and distributing it to every Democrat friend IRL I know.

And she also hits the nail on the head with this:

One reason many were unable to appreciate the brilliance of Democrats' Social Security strategy was that they view Reid and Pelosi as ineffective party spokespeople, and therefore ineffective leaders.

Reid, with his slight frame and round glasses, looks like he should be running a mercantile in the Old West, not a major political party.

It IS them I blame, then. For people feeling like they have to look like supermodels and get fifty facelifts just to stay active in journalism.

It IS them I blame for turning image from something potentially fun and pleasurable-- hey, Reid may look like a harmless old-general-store-clerk type, but that mild-mannered façade hides a serious mobster-slaying machine!-- into something that ruins your life.

Don't these people realize that it costs TIME and MONEY to look like a model? ... and that maybe, just maybe, the correct answer to those who want to make a name for themselves in journalism is NOT, "Sorry, we need higher cheekbones and Prada; shut up and buy those things, or find another profession"? :grr:

Even Democrats find themselves wincing when Pelosi appears on camera, perpetually wide-eyed and on-message, whatever the message may be.

Because of years of conditioning by advertisers and what journalism has turned into. Sad, very sad.

Neither has Gingrich's charisma, strategic vision, or propensity to quote Clausewitz. And that leads reporters to airbrush their tactical successes out of news reports.

Gingrich? Charismatic? Sure. And I'm Michael Savage. :eyes: