Democraticunderground.com My personal favorite^ Also, I would consider it a miracle if the Hackett can pull it off. Too many Ohioans vote single issue - Abortion. These people would accept being enslaved if it meant ending abortion. Unfortuneately, Democrats cannot win because of the three G's. Guns, Gays, and God. If your adversary claims to be backed by God - and the rabid fundamentalists agree - you are in a lot of trouble.
I would agree about Cockburn. I also regularly check out- cursor.org dailykos.com billmon.org http://atrios.blogspot.com dailyhowler.com juancole.com salon.com jameswolcott.com talkingpointsmemo.com rawstory.com
Both parties are really supercoalitions that contain often very divergent views. The party that manages to maintain the most cohesion wins. What's happened to the Dems is that their super coalition of social and economic liberals with labor and rural interest groups has fractured as socially conservative rural and blue collar groups have left. At the sametime the Republicans have since the 60's built a coalition of traditional economic conservatives with rural social conservatives. For the last 11 years this coalition has held up and with 9/11 even picked up a boost from blue collar and middle class voters who are interested in security and law and order but aren't economically or socially conservative. While there is a very real danger for the Republicans of their coalition fracturing so far they've held up. For Democrats its not enough to wait for the Republicans to implode but to either win back disaffected members of their coalition or try to form a new one. By hewing to strong social and economic liberal line embodied by someone like Kucinich they aren't going to do that. Also by criticizing candidates like Hackett for lack of ideological purity is also going to further weaken the party because that will lead to very liberal candidates but one with next to no support outside of a diminishing liberal base. Currently I live in the most liberal part of a state with a grand history of liberalism and even in Minnesota the Democrat Farmer Labor (DFL) as Democrats are called here, are back on their heels having not won a governorship since 1988, only winning one statewide office in the last 5 years, losing 2 Congressional seats, blowing a golden chance to secure Wellstone's Senate seat and even only barely hanging on to keeping the state blue in 2004. Sorry to sound like TJ or Bigtexx here but from my own experience of being involved with politics in MN the plight of the DFL is a perfect example of what I see wrong with the Democratic party nationally. Among many liberals there is an arrogance about their views that is exemplified by Wnes's posts criticizing someone like Hackett and a demand for ideological purity. In Minnesota in 2000, 2002 and even 2004 this has been expressed through liberals criticism of the state and national Dem parties and support for Nader, the Green Party and Kucinich. The very liberal weekly Twin Cities paper published a feature piece called "Span the Donkey" telling liberals to leave the Democratic party or at least support much more liberal candidates. All of that led to was getting a couple of Green Party Minneapolis Council members while statewide the Green vote for statewide offices fell below 5% losing MN major party status and state money for campaigning. Meanwhile Mondale loses a very close election to Norm Coleman allowing Republicans to retake control of the Senate. So while yes the Democratic party is a diverse party but as long as liberals forget that diversity also includes political positions and not just ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation its going to be a long road back to majority status.
I am afraid you are skewing my antiwar stance with my ideology in general. I don't speak for liberals or Democrats. I am telling as I see it, although in hindsight I admit this particular article isn't the best one to start a thread -- much like a hyperbole if you will. All said, I won't be surprised to see in the future there may be heated debate among "liberals" on the merits of staying the course.
wens, I was curious... you put liberals in quotes. What do you consider to be a liberal? Do you think that there are many self-described liberals who are not, in fact, liberals as you perceive them to be? Do you consider that there is a wide spectrum of liberals, or do you think that many liberals are actually something else... an exercise in self-delusion, as it were, and that being a liberal is an ideology that has a rather narrow and specific definition. That if one doesn't fit that definition, then they are something else. Do you think that the Democratic Party, to be successful, needs to be a strictly liberal party? Or do you see it as a party that can be successful embracing a wide range of beliefs, with a common thread, beyond the party label, that ties them together. And if so, what do you see that thread as consisting of? I'm curious. Sishir and I clearly disagree, in a friendly way, about the makeup of the Democratic Party, and if it's diversity is a strength or a weakness. I see it as a strength, needing only a strong, charismatic leader to gather it together and articulate a message that will resonate with the independent voters and moderate Republicans who see this disarray, and have either sat out elections, or decided to "vote for the devil they know, instead of the devil they don't know or understand." Anyone else who cares to chime in, please do so. And if someone tries to turn my questions around and ask what I think about these things, beware. I just may cut and paste the numerous posts I've made about it, in one thread or another. Keep D&D Civil!!
I'm not denying that the Democratic party is diverse but so is the Republican party just not diverse in the same way. What I'm criticizing is something that I see a lot of in Democratic, and Republican circles, about the desire among party activists to push for ideological purity and "eat their own." This goes beyond loyalty to a party but to recognition of where one's interest lie and a willingness to understand the political realities involved with getting your interests enacted. Yes certainly a strong charismatic leader would help, that always helps, but to build a movement that has more life than Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura you need a systematic rigor and discipline to run a successful political movement. As have been noted ad nauseum the Nader vote while nationally less than 5% still ended up harming Gore in places even besides FLA. In the last presidential election while liberals were more united behind Kerry there still were many of the most liberal voters who sat out. Potentially costing Kerry the victory. Like it or not the current Republican regime has shown the way to win even without great candidates considering how GW Bush himself squandered solid leads against both Gore and Kerry. In the case of the Republicans its moderates sticking with the party leadership. Given that the country now is overall much further right than it was in the heydey of the Democrats liberals both in and out of the Democratic party should recognize that candidates like Kucinich aren't going to win because ideologically that isn't where most of America is.
I'll ask you this then do you oppose Hackett only because of his stance regarding staying the course in Iraq? If so then I would say that you are ignoring most of his positions that I think you might agree with based only on a single issue. As I said in my thread regarding differences between Democrats and Republicans that even though Hackett and his opponents position are similar in regard to the issue of keeping US troops in Iraq they differ vastly on other positions. So to vote against Hackett just because he isn't ideologically pure on one issue would be sacrificing the benefit of having another Democrat in the House in regard to a whole host of issues particularly deciding who controls the house. Think about it this way. A vote for Hackett is a vote for removing Tom DeLay from the office of Majority Leader.
Well Deckard, "liberalism" has long lost its classical sense in the evolution of American politics, which essentially means laissez-faire, or "hands off" on both economical and social issues. My first use of liberal was loosely referring to the left of the conservative right and the Republican party, which is in line with today's concept. The second, quoted one, was meant to include all those who were antiwar in the first place - be it liberals, libertarians, conservatives, etc -- whether some of them now insist on staying the course is another matter. I do agree with Sishir's statement that today both major parties are coalitions of people of fairly wide political views. IMHO it's kind of naive to think only the Democrat party is one with "diversity" -- if so, the Republican party would have not enjoyed its success in the last two general elections, although many are single issue voters. It's now confirmed Democrat candidate Paul Hackett lost to his Republican opponent in the special congressional election in our district. I didn't actually follow the campaign closely, but I would be interested in what the political pundits have to say about this election. I guess one of the reasons Hackett failed to appeal to voters is many people may perceive he is a wealthy lawyer living in Indian Hill -- a very affluent area much like the Beverly Hill of southwestern Ohio. Despite his powerful war credential and fairly positive politcal messages, that elitist image may not strike a cord with many an average Joe and Jane. But it's just my guess. I could be wrong. Still, the margin of defeat is much smaller than any of the recent Dem candidates. Another possible reason, as I said in an earlier post in this thread, is that the organizational effort on the part of Democrat party appeared to be very poor. From the I-71 exit to my house, I could barely see a sign of Hackett. I mean how much did it take to erect some signs on roadside? If this serves any indication to the mid-term next November or 2008 general election (which Ohio will be again be the battleground state), Democrat party will have a long way to go. Although I am not affliated with Democrat party, I always think having a solid, energized base is more important than appearing "centrist". Having said these, progressive voices can be now heard in Cincinnati area -- I mean this both literally and figuratively. Before January of this year, all we had in radio were conservative talk show hosts. Just look at the programming at the "flag station" 55KRC, from 9 AM to midnight: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Dr. Laura -- all nationally syndicated, one-sided conservative crap, 24x5. Thank goodness we now have Air America Radio bringing the much needed sanity.
To be honest, I am not a one-issue voter. As I had said before, I do distinguish between the neocons and the bleeding heart liberals who both insist on staying the course. If this were the Vietnam War in the '60s, I'd be just as vociferously against the Democrat administration (on the war), but would have a much harder time to decide in the election considering the Civil Rights movement was largely supported by the Democrat party. Being generally a pacifist, I have to admit the incendiary overtone in the second paragraph of this counterpunch article got the better of me.
[The following is what I consider a fairly neutral assessment of the special election held yesterday. To those here who are "on my side" and know a thing or two about my political inclination and my generally keen awareness of national politics, I must say I feel -- very much about the result (though kind of expected), but also the fact I almost let the whole thing slip away under my nose. To take another swipe at the Democrat leadership in my district, they did NOT do a good job. It's really a pity I had first learned the candidate from a counterpunch article.] Closeness of race a surprise http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/NEWS01/508030355/1077/newselection Few expected Hackett's performance in GOP-heavy district By Howard Wilkinson Enquirer staff writer Wednesday, August 3, 2005 The win by Republican Jean Schmidt in Tuesday's 2nd Congressional District election was in no way shocking, but the fact that Democrat Paul Hackett made it a very close election is nothing short of astounding. Seven weeks ago, when Schmidt won an 11-candidate primary, few on either side believed that - in a district where President Bush won 64 percent of the vote and no Democrat had come close to winning in decades - this would be much of a contest. But Hackett, the Indian Hill lawyer trying to become the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress, won the vote in Brown, Adams, Pike and Scioto counties and came close to pulling off a monumental political upset. "This election is a shockwave of voter discontent that will be felt all across the country," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Hackett supporters who gathered Tuesday night at the Aronoff Center were heartened by early returns, but by the time Hamilton County results came in and gave Schmidt a slim lead, it became apparent that the Clermont County results would likely bury any chances for a Hackett victory. Either way the voters of the 2nd District went, they were bound to make history. Electing Schmidt made her the first woman to represent southern Ohio on Capitol Hill. Hackett, a major in the Marine Corps Reserves, would have been the first Iraq war veteran in Congress. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was a central issue in the race, with Hackett criticizing the Bush administration for invading Iraq in the first place and urging a swift training of Iraqi security forces and a speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces, while Schmidt steadfastly supported the Bush administration in all aspects of the war on terrorism. It was a particularly potent issue in the 2nd Congressional District, where military service is honored and where five families have seen loved ones killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tuesday night at the Schmidt election night party at the Holiday Inn Eastgate, two people who have felt the impact of the war most deeply showed up to show their support for the Republican candidate - Carolyn and Keith Maupin, the parents of Army Sgt. Matt Maupin, the Union Township reservist who has been listed as missing since April 2004. Carolyn Maupin said they supported Schmidt because she contacted them often and hand-delivered a letter from President Bush to the family last month. Hackett, Carolyn Maupin said, "never contacted us, and you would think he would.'' "How come he hasn't come to see the parents of the only soldier missing in Iraq?,'' Keith Maupin said. "She's a supporter of Matt, and that's my main concern.'' But Hackett said recently that he has been reluctant to get in touch with the families of soldiers and Marines killed overseas and with the Maupins "because I don't want to be seen as exploiting those people for political gain. They've been through enough.'' Hackett's campaign tried to convince 2nd District voters - two-thirds of whom voted for President Bush last fall - that Schmidt would go to Congress and be a "rubber stamp'' for the Bush administration not only on the war, but a host of other issues. Schmidt insisted she would support the president's agenda when she agreed and oppose it when she disagreed. "I am the candidate who is in tune with the people of the 2nd District,'' Schmidt said in an Adams County debate last week. "My opponent is a liberal Democrat who is out of step with the district.'' But, for both candidates, the key to Tuesday's election - an election that everyone knew would have relatively low turnout - was to identify supporters and cajole them into turning out for an election when school is out, many families are on vacations, and the heat was insufferable. One of the oldest saws of politics is that high turnouts favor Democrats, but many Democrats believed this election may be the exception to the rule. "I don't now what low turnout means in this case,'' said Tim Burke, Hamilton County Democratic chairman. "It may be good for us, if our voters are more motivated to get out and vote.'' Dave Lane, the Clermont County Democratic chairman, said his party organization had about 20 canvassers roaming Miami Township, Schmidt's home base, with targeted lists of Democratic voters they were contacting to get them out to vote. "The good news is that most of the people they contacted had already voted,'' Lane said. Republican phone bank operations in all seven counties were calling GOP voters and urging them to go to the polls. Even the Butler County Republican Party, which isn't in the 2nd District, had a crew of Miami University Republicans phoning GOP voters in the 2nd District. This is, and has been for decades, one of the most reliably Republican districts in the country; and a district where GOP voters turned out in droves last fall to vote overwhelmingly for President Bush. The southern Ohio district played a major role in giving Bush the 118,601-vote margin he needed to win Ohio, and thus, a second term in the White House. And it is a district that has been held by Republicans for more than 30 years. Rob Portman won the seat in a special congressional election 12 years ago and never got less than 70 percent in his six re-election campaigns. After Schmidt won the 11-candidate GOP primary on June 14, there was a feeling on both sides that the special election campaign would not be much of a contest. That feeling turned out to be wrong. By the middle of last week - with cable network news crews tailing the Iraq war veteran candidate along the highways and byways of the 2nd District, and internal polls indicating Hackett was a real threat - the National Republican Congressional Committee landed in southern Ohio with both feet, pouring more than a half-million dollars into TV advertising that claimed Hackett wanted to raise taxes. Hackett also got the attention of the Ohio Republican Party, which sent its entire field staff to the 2nd District to set up phone bank operations in all seven counties of the district. Carl Forti, a spokesman for the congressional committee, said last Thursday that the party had decided to "bury'' Hackett because of a quote that day in USA Today in which Hackett said he was willing to go to Iraq and serve for "the son of a bi - - - in the White House." But by that time, the attack ad had been produced, and air time was bought on all Cincinnati TV stations. It did not take long for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to respond. Within 24 hours of the Republican attack ads, the Democrats responded with a TV ad campaign linking Schmidt to Ohio's unpopular governor, Bob Taft, saying she willingly supported tax increases proposed by Taft and, like the governor, was the subject of ethical questions - in her case, her acceptance of a free dinner and Bengals tickets from a Columbus lobbyist. Schmidt later reimbursed the lobbyist for the gifts.
You have a ‘keen’ awareness of national politics - yet you don't know who is running in your local election? Yes, it is sad to discover a political candidate through counterpunch, because what you will learn about that person will be biased and inaccurate.
