MadMax, With the recent trend of U.S. Presidents having a background as Governors rather than Congressman, should the Minority Leader be expected to <i>Lead</i> the Democrats or just a person that won't turnoff potential swing voters?
The Democrats' strategy, in my opinion, should follow the GOP strategy after 1992: * Develop their own "Contract w/ America" with non-controversial issues that really resonate with Americans. BIG ideas. Not prescription drugs, but health care reform. That type of thing. * Present a unified message - every race, every candidate needs to push that same agenda. * Constantly blast the GOP for not acting on those things. Make sure the GOP can't act on those things so they can't co-opt the Democrats' issues. * Get some very vocal and partisan but charismatic leaders in the leadership positions in Congress (their own Newt). * Attack every little thing that Congress enacts that's controversial - they can now blame it all on the Republicans.
Very simple. Organize, get a strategy of some kind together, make sure you get some strong candidates for the next go-round 'cause you'll need'em. GWB will lower taxes, strengthen the Environmental POLLUTION Agency, raise the defense budget, possibly get us into a war we don't need ("I'll finish Saddam for you, daddy!"), further stall the economy and worsen/lengthen the recession....and that's when you pounce. Unfortunately the reactionary judges he'll be appointing will be there for life, and that's a shame. I would prefer judges who can also see the trees for the forest.
nice post, haven. Here's an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal today, especially relevant to the governor issue just raised: -------------------------- RUSSELL GOLD The Wall Street Journal Their names are still unfamiliar: Sebelius, Blagojevich, Freudenthal, Baldacci, and maybe Napolitano. But that could change, since these are among the few bright spots for Democrats in an otherwise disastrous midterm election. Before Tuesday, the Democrats hoped to control Congress from the inside. After Tuesday, their best hope was an assortment of fresh faces from far afield in governors' offices around the country. On the day after an election that left Democratic leaders in Washington embarrassed, the spotlight fell on relative unknowns nationally who took mostly Republican-held governors' mansions, giving the Democrats a new class of potential stars. They're an unlikely lot. U.S. Rep. John Baldacci parlayed spaghetti dinners at his family's popular Italian restaurant to claim the governorship of Maine. Dave Freudenthal, a lawyer who has never held elective office, had his 23-year-old daughter, Hillary, run his campaign. He won the governorship of Vice President Cheney's homestate-Wyoming. Arizona's attorney general, Janet Napolitano, who had announced her gubernatorial bid in English and Spanish, appears to have taken her state's governorship from the GOP, narrowly beating former Rep. Matt Salmon, though some last ballots were still being counted. Rod Blagojevich is a former boxer, the son of a steelworker, who, as a congressman from Chicago, beat Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan to end 25 years of Republican control of the governor's mansion in Springfield. Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas insurance commissioner, raised a record $4 million to beat Republican nominee Tim Shallenburger to become that state's governor. The Democratic gubernatorial victories may have brought them even with Republicans -- with 25 governorships held by Democrats and 25 by Republicans. But their expectations, and even the GOP's, were for several more Democratic gains -- perhaps a majority. Currently, the Democrats hold 21 governorships, the GOP 27. Independents are retiring from office in Maine and Minnesota. .... ------------------------------------------
so it's good for the democrats to hold up legislation through filibuster? when they don't have a majority in either house?? you really think that would play to their favor? i can see how it could in the short term, in that the legislation they don't want would be held up...but in the long term, if they attempted to filibuster something like the homeland security bill, they would get hammered next election.
i understand your point...but i think perception is greater than reality in politics, unfortunately...the perception is that the leadership of the Dem party before this election was held among McAuliffe, Daschle and Gephardt...the latter two because of their congressional leadership positions.
I think that this is part of their problem. (Note to TJ, I am using "their" versus "our". I know you have trouble with such subtleties.) When the left moves closer to center, the right redefine what the left and the center means. The end effect is that the center is getting dragged to the right. Haven, WRT what you were saying about the Democrats becoming issue oriented, do you think that one of the issues should be anti-war. The reason that I mention war is that most voting women do not want to send their sons or daughters to fight and die in wars (or would be only willing as a last resort). Seeing the bellicose nature of the Bush Admin, the inevitable war with Iraq may very likely be followed by a war with North Korea (which will no doubt rampt up in the fall of 2004, just in time for the Presidential election). Getting a womenly friendly stance on the upcoming wars may reap great benefits in the next election cycle for the Democrats. I would also bet that there are other women friendly issues on which the Democrats could capitalize.
The average voter does not pay very close attention to the day to day going ons in DC; they are more into the big picture. The voters want to see results and will not pay attention to the excuses that the Republicans come up with. This particular argument that the opposition party "did not lay down and be our b****" does not fly. That is what opposition parties are supposed to do. The opposition party have always used Senate filibusters to their benefit. I do not see the Democrats being any different this time round.
i understand your point...and i agree to a point...but i don't know if that's the case this time around...i'm not saying roll over...but i'm saying if things that generally receive public support don't get taken care of because of filibuster, the republicans are gonna make that well known.
No Worries: I wouldn't touch the possibility of war with Iraq, were I part of the Democratic leadership. 1. Bush has gathered too much support for a possible war. 2. You can't stop it, and if such a war is successful, you look like a coward who was afraid of Saddam or simply contrarian. 3. Most importantly, when in doubt, avoid sounding anti-patriotic. The people opposed to the war are going to vote for you anyway, and you risk alienating the average member of the Middle Class who likes flag waving but also might want better health care coverage. What I WOULD do, is this: 1. Make conditions for a possible war very specific. Require a brightline complete with trip wires. 2. Make sure everyone knows specifically what trips the justification for invasion. 3. If the administration begins to turn its hawkish eye upon other countries, you can start brandishing your requirements for war. You cogently explain how Iraq met the requirements... and how the other possible conflicts do not. You look like a Rational Patriot, while the opposition looks war mongerish.
Just read a report on the VOA site that the dems are considering Martin Frost, a moderate Texan member of the house, as the next minority speaker. He's quoted as saying democrats must move closer to the center instead of farther to the left. Great. I hope they don't do this. Milquetoast demublican. Blech! And haven, I don't think I agree, not that you necessarily care. If some or many dems believe in their heart of hearts that war against Iraq is wrong given international ill-will and insufficient proof of a real nuclear program or of terrorist collaboration, then they should speak out. (By the way, I am NOT trying to open up the war-or-not-to-war discussion again. Please everybody just take the previous sentence with heavy emphasis of the "if" prepositional phrase that beings it!). I, for one, am dying for more democrats to stand up like Byrd or Pelosi and say "this is bullcrap!" But maybe I am the sort of dem. that threatens the party with a bleak political future.
Haven, I did not mean for the war issue to be the main point. I had wanted the point to be that the Democrats should adopt woman friendly issues. Taking a war as last resort stance would work toward this point. B-Bob, I agree with you about Martin Frost, but for different reasons. The Democrats may be better served by having a woman, Nancy Pelosi, as their House leader for the reasons I gave Haven. I unlike you don't think that a centrist approach is a bad thing. I do think that US voters will support some liberal agenda items. The Democrats need to be judicious about which liberal items to go after. For example, trying to close down the School of the Americas would be a good choice while something like universal health care would be a bad choice. Closing down the SoA would gain the Dems infinite good will with the progressives, who defected to Nader, while remaining off the radar for the rest of the voters.
My take I'll start with Major. The Democrats' strategy, in my opinion, should follow the GOP strategy after 1992: * Develop their own "Contract w/ America" with non-controversial issues that really resonate with Americans. BIG ideas. Not prescription drugs, but health care reform. That type of thing. * Present a unified message - every race, every candidate needs to push that same agenda. * Constantly blast the GOP for not acting on those things. Make sure the GOP can't act on those things so they can't co-opt the Democrats' issues. * Get some very vocal and partisan but charismatic leaders in the leadership positions in Congress (their own Newt). * Attack every little thing that Congress enacts that's controversial - they can now blame it all on the Republicans.* Develop their own "Contract w/ America" with non-controversial issues that really resonate with Americans. BIG ideas. Not prescription drugs, but health care reform. That type of thing. * Present a unified message - every race, every candidate needs to push that same agenda. * Constantly blast the GOP for not acting on those things. Make sure the GOP can't act on those things so they can't co-opt the Democrats' issues. * Get some very vocal and partisan but charismatic leaders in the leadership positions in Congress (their own Newt). ********** Note this includes vetoing many Republican bills like tax cuts for the very wealthy and repeal of the inheritance tax for those with multi-million dollar estates. Pick your issues, don't veto everything. The Republicans don't play nice (see the Clinton Impeachment with millions of dollars of right wing lawsuit financing and money for investigations). You can't afford to play nice either. Live or die with the anti-war caucous, against the endless "war" on terrorism. Limit the war to actual terrorists, not every country that has oil or Israel doesn't like. You can never out militarize the Republicans. It doesn't matter if you have your war heroes running against their chickenhawks. The Republicans are so identified with war and defense spending. Besides if you don't oppose the endless war, another one will be started or at least threatened before 2004, so Repuiblicans can play let's rally around the flage again. You don't have to be a genius to see how saber rattling against Iraq won the election for the Republicans-- as Rhove planned "positive issue environment " or some such. It succeeded in puting Enron and Cheny's involvement w. Halliburton off the frontpage. Expect a repeat performance. Encourage guys like Lieberman who are ridiculously pro-war and those Demos who vote for tax breaks for the wealthy to switch parties, if they must. You must hold the Republicans accountable for the mess that imho they will create. You don't want them to be able to say: look, lots of Demos voted for the War and the tax cuts to the wealthy, too. Don't blame us that it didn't work out." If the Demos achieve the approximate coherency of the Republicans and the coherent Republican strategy of war, tax-cuts for the wealthy, high unemployment, high incarceration and benefit cuts for everyone else leaves the majority happy, the Demos are just going to lose, but at least will be done with dignity. The recent loss was one without dignity. Eventually the tide will turn as people realize that tax cuts for thewealthy and endless wars don't do much for the average Joe.
This was a very effective tactic by Bob Dole and co early in Clinton's presidency. The key is filibuster that which is seen as radical, or out of mainstream America--which I would not be surprised if the Republicans push as some Demos did in their glee from victory. Yes filibustering homeland security or defense related bills is not smart politically right now--even if the bills themselves are bad. The one thing people will say in 2 years is whatever happens it will largely be attributed to Republicans. If they are popular moves, and the economy comes back roaring, and things are looking up, that is to the Republicans advantage. But if not, there is no way the GWB is going to be able to blame it on those minority Democrats who filibustered. If reasonable and popular bills are put forth they will not be filibustered.
Hey, <b>glynch</b>, does the "g" stand for gridlock? Yeah, that's it... Gridlock Lynch. Endless wars? Whoa... I thought the tax cuts were pretty much across the board. I didn't know that they were <b>for</b> the rich. LOL... all the way to the bank.
When the vast majority of the savings from a tax cut go to the wealthy, it's perfectly legitimate to say the cut was for the rich.
glynch, Does casting out the Jewish vote because of their concern/interest for Israel outweigh the gains to be made from gaining the anti-war vote? <b>At best</b>, I see it as a wash for increasing the total number of registered Democrats. More likely, it could be a net loss for the Democrats.
