Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman says she has voted for John Kerry six times, but her reaction to his recent flurry of commentaries and interviews is this: “Stop him before he kills (the Democrats’ chances) again.” As Kerry acts like he’s warming up for 2008, she writes, “what the Democrats need this time out is not a messenger honed to squeak on the margin of undecideds, but a vision of what’s gone wrong and how to right it.” If Goodman has a visionary picked out, she’s not saying yet.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- KSGolfnut on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Political_mama on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Rage on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- beber on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Rage on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Political_mama on Democrats hit back on patriotism
- Mr_Kia on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- TheBorgHunter on Democrats hit back on patriotism
- lindainks55 on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Agnatha on Democrats hit back on patriotism
54 Comments
Maybe Ellen Goodman needs to go beyond looking at a Democrat candidate, but the entire Democrat Party.
Time to jump ship Democrats, you are on a boat that’s sinking.
Actually Joe this maybe the perfect time for the Democratic party, but she is right that they need to have a plan and not just insight as to what is wrong. With the general hatred for the Republicans that has swept the country. The Democrats have a chance to move in even without a plan, God help us but that could be the case. They would be unstoppable if they actually had some sound judgment planning on their side! Right now the house is burning, yes it maybe comforting to have someone that can recognize the smoke and flames standing beside you, expressing their concern. But if someone comes along that knows the phone number to the fire department and grabs a hose they will get the vote of even the moderates!
I will have a hard time voting for a Democrat, but it will be even harder to vote for someone that has any connection to the Bush administration, the Religious Right, the Neo-cons, the PNAC, the Israeli connection.The Republicans will lose some seats, it might not here in Kansas but they will through out the country. But right now if the Democrats come up with someone that has a logical plan to right the wrongs. It maybe another twenty years before the Republican will ever be in control again. I believe it was through the Democrats inaction that the Republican had gained control in the first place. As most of the time there is a balance.
I don’t care if Kerry runs, just as long as he doesn’t get the nomination. Democrats better nominate someone who can win. The problem with the nominating process is, it goes too far to the extreme (that goes for both parties). The last thing in the world that Democrats need is a far-left ideologue. They need someone who appeals to the majority of Americans. If the Party swings way to the left, plan on another 8 years in “the wilderness”.
Kerry had his chance. He blew it. Actually, his pusillanimous Congressional record blew it.
The Democrats should run the guy who WON last time–Al Gore.
Other excellent candidates would be Russ Feingold, Diane Finestine, or a good governor like Bill Richardson.
Usually that’s true, XXX. But when you compare the former front-runner Howard Dean to Kerry, which one was more “extreme”?
A lot of people in the bland states of Iowa and New Hampshire thought Kerry had a better chance of winning. They weren’t really voting for whom they liked best.
How’d that turn out?
Kerry did not get much of a bounce after the Democratic convention. They played it safe, only positives were allowed to be spoken (Carter broke with that plan, because no one has control of him any more)at the convention, the Swift Boat attacks caught them flat footed - they did not respond to those until it was too late.
The “I voted for it, before I voted against it” gift also did not help very much. I expected the Repubs to start attacking his senate voting record and calling him a “Liberal”. But, this was not necessary because the “flip-flop” meme was working too well.
John Kerry is a good man. He served his country which is more than any neo-con chickenhawk in the current administration ever did.
He and his campaign seemed to havethe idea that he could play safe, just remain in the game (not bother with going to the plate, or fielding grounders) and that he could sneak in and win that way.
Obviously, that did not work. For no more effort than those clowns put into winning, they got very close.
It is time for some new blood and hopefully not the Rodman-Clinton variety.
KCC, hate to burst your bubble, but I’m not a Dean fan either. I have nothing against him, I just don’t see him as president. Personally, I don’t see a good answer for Democrats. They’re not as proficient as republicans when it comes to candidate building at any level, local or national. I will give Dean credit for trying to change that. Republicans are far better at taking a long-term approach to candidacy. They start early. Democrats need to develop a “bush league” for candidates. Democrats need to develop a sense of what it takes for a candidate to win. Some of the most liberal party planks (gun control, abortion rights, etc) don’t help the cause.I know that’s political blasphmy to the left, and I may take some flak for it, but that’s the facts, IMHO.
Democrats need to learn a few things from the republican playbook, like how to sell a candidate. Republicans must be doing something right if they can sell a loser like Bush….twice.
“How’d that turn out?”
Pretty crappy, I’d say. But that’s a whole ‘nother part of what’s wrong with the Democratic Party; letting Yankees be the only ones who pick presidential candidates.
XXX, I have to disagree with you on the “far-left” comment. I’ll concede that too far left would be disastrous, but the Democrats have inched their way closer to the Republicans by trying to become too centrist and not speaking up about the things they should. They have become Republican-lite.
Then again, if Dems would do one thing as well as the Reps do, they might have a chance. And that’s play dirty. Reps are notorious for attacking personalities instead of politics, and it has served them well for many years. Dems just like to play nice too much for their own good. I hate mud-slinging, but I’m disgusted when the Dems continue to turn the other cheek, ending up as nothing but a mud-covered lump.
Hmmmmmm, I wonder if Rove could be bought?
X, I think we need to get a little beyond the standard labels, and just look at specific issues. You know, the “what’s good for America” thing. That’s a tough nut to crack–EVERYONE seems to be thinking in terms of political spin these days, which isn’t entirely unjustifiable: removing these current bastards is of paramount importance. At the same time, we’re seeing a great deal of dissatisfaction with both the current regime AND politics-as-usual. That’s important.
Bubba’s mantra was “It’s the economy, stupid.” Maybe, “It’s freedom, stupid” should be ours for 2008. But I would like to see genuine debates–like we have here–not competing 30-second spots!
In terms of the hot-button that divide us (sometimes deliberately), sometimes there’s a middle ground, but sometimes there’s not. I doubt any Dem is going to be running a strong gun control program (notice how Kerry conspicuously went hunting?). Clinton came as close to a middle ground on abortion as I’ve seen, “legal and rare.” But then he also came up with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” didn’t he?
By all means, we need an alternative politics that garners a rough consensus, but it has to mean something.
What happens after “we” win?
BILL BRADLEY needs to come out of semi-retirement.
Kerry will decide to run before he decides not to . . .
Rage has an excellent idea on the motto point. But going even further than that is what is the platform the Democrats will run on? I haven’t heard much of anything constructive coming out of the democrat side in quite awhile.
The Democrats are going to have to stop complaining about every thing and everybody they don’t agree with and come up with something positive to run on. As I said many times in the past, nobody likes a whiner, and the Democrats are putting up nothing BUT a whining front.
Give your party faithful something positive, and you will get the votes. Keep on doing what you’re doing now, and you’ll probably get a Bush clone in power. And you will deserve it.
Walker, if you don’t know what the plan is, you haven’t been listening. Here’s a 5-point plan I heard last week:
1. Balance the budget.
2. Make a college education the goal for everyone just like a high school deploma was the goal for everyone in the last century.
3. Anybody who works for a living should have decent health care.
4. Work toward a hybrid economy and reduce the dependence on foriegn oil.
5. Create an institute of Science and Technology to take advantage of what Americans do best.
Anybody who comes off with that old crock about how the Democrats “don’t have a plan” is a lying part of the shitstorm conservatives have been spewing for years now. It’s a flat-out lie.
Rage, if the Liberals don’t WIN, it doesn’t matter where their policies and ideals fall in the political spectrum. If the Dems don’t get over their high-falutin ideals, THEY’RE GOING TO LOSE. Now I’ll tell you a lession I learned from my union organizing days. Listen close, cause this is important.
BEING RIGHT DOESN’T MEAN YOU WIN.
Let that soak in for a minute.
Then consider this. The republicans are a cornered animal. They know they’re in deep trouble. They’ll pull out all the stops and they’ll do anything to maintain their grip on power. ANYTHING. If Democrats don’t understand that and aren’t willing or able to fight the republicans on their own level, they’re walking into a gunfight with a knife, and we know where that goes.
RD,”removing these current bastards is of paramount importance.”
You’re SO right! It’s the only thing that counts right now. This country can’t survive another 10 years of republican rule. We can survive losing Iraq and the middle east. We can’t survive a financial melt-down, and that’s where republicans are taking us. If something doesn’t change drastically in the next 3 years, it’s game over.
So this isn’t just a campaign, it’s a war for the soul of this country.
I’m not optimistic.
XXX,That was totally uncalled for. I have been paying attention, and I am for sure not part of some “shit storm” republican hype. You know me better than that.
This “plan” is the first I’ve heard of on a solid basis. Who has been putting this “plan” forward? Is it a “plan” that has been taken as a given and adopted by the Democratic counsil? Why isn’t this “plan” been broadcast so everybody can hear about it? Or is it a “plan” that has only been made aware of to people who read only liberal publications?
It’s a damn good plan, and one that makes a start for the democrat party. But: Where is the section that quarantees the return of freedoms taken away by the current administration? Where is the section that quarantees the return of our troops now in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where is the section that throws out most if not all of the Patriot act? Where is the section of the plan that says the rich will pay their fair share in taxes?
How does the Democrat party plan on paying for decent health care? Force it on employers? What about small business employers? What about the citizens of this nation who don’t or can’t work? Do they qualify for health care?
When you write things like, “If the Dems don’t get over their high-falutin ideals, THEY’RE GOING TO LOSE.” I wonder if they really do have a plan, because the one you stated they have doesn’t sound so high-falutin to me.
Then again, when you wrote, “Anybody who comes off with that old crock about how the Democrats “don’t have a plan” is a lying part of the shitstorm conservatives have been spewing for years now. It’s a flat-out lie.” then in the next post write, “I’m not optimistic”, I have to wonder where exactly this “plan” came from.
Walker, Sorry if I got you wrong there. It’s just that there for a minute, you sounded just like Rush, or Hannity, or any of the right-wingers who keep spewing that crap.
Here’s more of “The Plan’ for those who don’t listen or are too lazy to look.
“The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.
To learn more about the Democratic Party’s commitment to security, opportunity, and responsibility, read about our agenda below.”http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
“Our nation stands as a shining example to all the world of freedom and democracy, a unique honor that comes with a responsibility to lead.
Democrats believe that strong international alliances are the cornerstone of our foreign policy. The threat from international terrorism and rogue states requires a new era of alliances led by the United States, based on mutual respect and shared vision.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/strength_overseas/
“If you want job creation, a strong economy, and a fiscally responsible federal government, there’s only one choice: vote for Democrats. History has proven that Democrats know what it takes to keep our economy growing.
* Expanding economic opportunity. Democrats believe that the most effective means of increasing opportunity for our families is a high quality, good paying job. We are committed to expanding economic opportunity to all Americans and creating the new jobs of the future.* Fiscal responsibility. The Democratic Party believes in balanced budgets and paying down our national debt, while Republicans continue to put huge burdens on future generations by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign nations.* Fair trade. Creating jobs at home means opening markets abroad. The Democratic Party supports fair trade agreements that raise standards for workers abroad while making American business more competitive. We will also fight for stronger enforcement of our existing trade agreements.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/economic_growth/
“Democrats know that the key to expanding opportunity is to provide every child with a world-class education. We want to meet our responsibilities to America’s children by ensuring that our schools have the resources they need to help our kids meet high standards.
Democrats will also help expand educational opportunities for college by providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition, increasing the size and access to Pell Grants and supporting proven programs that encourage more young people to attend and succeed in college.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/education/
“Democrats believe that after a life of hard work, you earn a secure retirement. Our commitment to protecting the promise of Social Security is absolute. We will not allow anyone to endanger Social Security or take even a single step toward dismantling it. We are open to any and all ideas that ensure that the current and future generations of retirees receive the benefits they were promised without heaping trillions onto our national debt.
Democrats also recognize that Americans rely on more than just Social Security for a secure retirement. Democrats will continue to fight for genuine pension reform that protects working families from future Enron-style abuse. We also want to work on new ways to help hard-working Americans create retirement savings.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/secure_retirement/
“In the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, no one should have to choose between taking their child to a doctor or paying the rent. Democrats are committed to making sure every single American has access to affordable, effective health care coverage.
We can make sure every American has that access while preserving the high quality of our health care and keeping the choices that we enjoy. We can leave decisions about health care to patients and doctors, keeping the government and insurance companies out.
Democrats will not stop fighting this battle until every single American has access to affordable health care.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/affordable_health_care/
“The Democratic Party is committed to genuine reform that protects our rights and ensures that elected officials act ethically — not just within the law, but within the spirit of the law.
An honest and ethical government requires constant vigilance and a continuous dedication to reform. Democrats support reform principles that preserve the people’s trust in government.
It was overwhelming support from Democrats that allowed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform to pass. Democrats continue to making protecting and promoting our right to vote a top priority. And Democrats in Congress are leading the fight for a meaningful ethics process that holds everyone — including the leadership — responsible for their actions.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/honest_government/
A fundamental tenet of our democracy is our right to vote and to have that vote counted. But we must be vigilant in protecting those rights and ensuring that our voting system works for every American.
Democrats are determined to reforming the voting system in this country to create federal standards for our elections. Our voting system must include verification, accountability, and accuracy. Democrats want to increase access to polls with Election Day registration, shorter lines, and early voting. We also want to modernize election equipment and increase impartiality.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/election_reform/
“The Democratic Party believes that it is our responsibility to protect America’s extraordinary natural resources. The health of our families, the strength of our economy, and the fate of our world all depend on our stewardship of the environment.
We reject the false choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. We know instead that farming, fishing, tourism, and other industries require a healthy environment. We know new technologies that protect the environment can create new high-paying jobs. We know a cleaner environment means a stronger economy.
Far too many Americans live with unhealthy air or water quality. Democrats will fight to strengthen the laws that ensure we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. And Democrats will make sure these laws our enforced. Rising rates of asthma and mercury poisoning are just two of the dire consequences of ignoring environmental problems.
Democrats know that a sensible energy policy is key to a strong economy, our national security, and a clean environment. Democrats are committed to the next generation of affordable and renewable energy for the 21st center and to conservation measures — like increased CAFE standards — that will immediately reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we worked to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and will work to ensure reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2007.
On every civil rights issue, Democrats lead the fight. Democrats support expanding opportunities in jobs, health care benefits, and education. We support vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws.”
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/civil_rights/
Now this just sounds like a heck of a plan to me.
” Or is it a “plan” that has only been made aware of to people who read only liberal publications?”
Now just where do you think you’re going to find a Democratic Plan? Do you really expect to see it on Townhall.com? Or maybe Drudge?
Maybe if a person really wants to find “The Plan”, they should check out the Democratic Party website.
http://www.democrats.org/
XXXI doubt too many average voters read the above websites. What you linked to makes the democrats sound like they finally are getting it together. So why arn’t they getting this out to the general public? Why do I have to go to aome democrat website to read this, since I am an independant?
What I really want to know is why, if the democrats have this plan, and are sticking to it, do you write, “If the Dems don’t get over their high-falutin ideals, THEY’RE GOING TO LOSE.”? If this plan is such a good one, and it is, then why are you so pessimistic about their chances of winning? Is it that you think the de,ocrats have no huevos and are afraid to stand up to the republicans?
The average voter has no clue as to what the democrats stand for anymore. The average voter knows what they read, and what they are reading is the democrats doing little but slamming the president. The average voter is not getting the plan as put forth by the democrats.
If the democrats are not getting the plan out, they are playing into the hands of the republicans. And where does that leave the democrats in 2008?
All good ideas XXX and thanks for getting them out there.
I do have to take issue with your take that we must shed some of our most important party issues to win. I think Rage posted best as to that. If we win I want us to KNOW in the actions that follow that we won. Just getting to say “we win” does not mean much.
Our last attempt at pandering ended in the best Republican President in this century Bill Clinton. Bill “NAFTA with no teeth” Clinton.
It maybe that a great many Americans DON’T embrace our ideals. This is because they are the victims of lies or they are willfully stupid. Think A union guy,working class hunter or a big portion of Christians who vote GOPhere. We are not the party that wants to “ban all guns” or “murder babies”. Rush Limbaugh, talk radio, and the not conservative enough media made us that. We need to attack the makers of the lie. Not compromise because the lie has “worked”.
We will never win in the South X. I got my own ideas as to why but that is another thread.
But back to the thread.
Kerry? I never much liked him. Good guy. Very conscientous and a good Senator. Also very vulnerable to the American prejudice AGAINST intellectuals.Also too patrician “looking”.
In terms of public attitude, we are now even stronger than in 2000 when we WON. Now remember here that the only force that “muddied” that win WAS the far left in the form of Nader voters.
We need Ralph back home. We need to give him a reason to come home. Namely, we need to 1)Feed his ego and 2) make him feel like he is not selling out. I don’t know HOW we do that. But it needs to be done.
Hillary? Nope. Starts to look like a Bush?Clinton royal house exchange.
I’ll second the call for Al Gore. Nader for VP? He could debate any con into the dirt. But would he do it?
Uh, X, I don’t particularly mind being associated with RD’s ideas, but I think you swapped us out in your responses. The “paramount importance” bit was my line.
I agree that victory is important, but I’m sensing that those voters who have awakened to the situation will have a fairly low tolerance for the usual bullshit. The worst-case scenario would be to sacrifice large numbers of principles AND lose–something that’s already happened, and repeatedly.
As to whose principles, well, let the debate begin. “I don’t belong to any organized political party; I’m a Democrat,” said Will Rogers. But I’m also reminded that New Deal congressman Jerry Voorhis–the guy Nixon defeated in ‘46–started out as a Socialist.
If there’s a silver lining to the current regime, is that Democrats CAN produce attractive alternatives–there’s so much that CAN and MUST be done differently. I don’t buy the argument that a clear alternative can’t be presented without alienating swing voters. Your quoted material points that out. It SHOULD be a slam dunk, but. . .
By the way, as far as nominating a “far-left ideologue” goes, that is considerably open to interpretation. How often does that really happen? The grand exception, of course, was McGovern–but 4 years earlier Hubert “Mr. Liberal” Humphrey only barely lost. Mondale is debatable.
Politics is also not a time capsule. We should not, as they say, be fighting the last war.
MY point was that ideas matter. You’ve presented ideas. This is good.
Walker, climb off my ass.
“What you linked to makes the democrats sound like they finally are getting it together. So why arn’t they getting this out to the general public?”
Doesn’t that play right to what I was talking about? Their plan is good. Why doesn’t everybody know about it? I call that a failure at some level. And that’s not how you win.
“What I really want to know is why, if the democrats have this plan, and are sticking to it, do you write, “If the Dems don’t get over their high-falutin ideals, THEY’RE GOING TO LOSE.”?
Because some of the more liberal ideas of the Democratic Party turn away voters that should be voting Democrat, ie, Guns and abortion, just to name 2. And my point was, an idealist campaign (we’re not going to fight dirty like republicans, we’re not going to get down and dirty) will lose. Read my previous post for a fuller explination.
“Is it that you think the de,ocrats have no huevos and are afraid to stand up to the republicans?”
That’s EXACTLY what I think of most of the Democratic leadership. I thought I made that pretty clear.
“The average voter has no clue as to what the democrats stand for anymore.”
Well noshit, Maynard!
“The average voter knows what they read, and what they are reading is the democrats doing little but slamming the president.”
The light of day breaks!
“The average voter is not getting the plan as put forth by the democrats.”
Wouldn’t that indicate that maybe Democrats are doing something wrong? Wasn’t that the point I made earlier?
“If the democrats are not getting the plan out, they are playing into the hands of the republicans. And where does that leave the democrats in 2008?”
” If something doesn’t change drastically in the next 3 years, it’s game over.
So this isn’t just a campaign, it’s a war for the soul of this country.
I’m not optimistic.”
Want me to repeat it again?
Now Walker, you said,
“Why do I have to go to aome democrat website to read this, since I am an independant?
Spouting republican talking points (Democrats don’t have a plan) doesn’t sound very independent. Knowing you as well as I do, I’m surprised that you wouldn’t take the minimum effort to do a google search, IF you really wanted to know about “The Plan”.
If you’re going to wait to have it spoon-fed to you, be prepaired to get a lot of Pablum while you’re waiting.
I would have been a staunch democrat 100 years ago but since the late fifties they have been on the wrong path. Buchanan-Nader in 2008 is the last chance for America politically. If a dem or repuke wins in 2008 then we have a race/civil war by 2010 for certain!
PS: I hope that everyone is keeping their powder dry because things will get ugly in a few hours with those cursed beaners!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!!
“Just getting to say “we win” does not mean much.”
JR, saying that we fought the good fight but lost means even less.
“Our last attempt at pandering ended in the best Republican President in this century Bill Clinton.”
Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of the great presidents of our time. NAFTA sucked, but a lot of jobs were created, the economy boomed, the deficit was tamed for a while, and we had a surplus. Your opinion may be that Clinton sucked, but he represented a hell of a lot of Americans.
Let me make something clear. I am NOT registered as a Democrat. I side with Democrats because I detest the Bush Junta, and Democrats are the only other game in town. I voted for Clinton twice and by God, I’d vote for him again.
“We are not the party that wants to “ban all guns” or “murder babies”.
If that’s the case, you need to make it a lot clearer. To someone like me, those are HUGE issues and affect the way I vote.
“We will never win in the South X.”
Oh, I wouldn’t say that. I believe Clinton did pretty well in the South. But I’ll garrantee you’ll never win the South by running a Boston Yankee Liberal. I’m a Southerner (by the grace of God), and I fully intend to support Democrats. If Democrats have made me see the light, why can’t you do the same for my Southern Brethren? Thinking Southerners are stupid or redneck hicks is a huge mistake.
Try running a John Edwards or somebody like him and see how the South votes.
“We need Ralph back home. We need to give him a reason to come home.”
You need to pull the huge bug out of his ass and then stake him out on an ant hill. There wouldn’t even be a Bush Junta if it weren’t for Ralph Nader and his monumental ego. I used to like Ralph till he waged a campaign that he knew he couldn’t win and split the Democratic vote.
Rage, I’m sorry I got your post mixed up. As you can probably tell from my temprament tonight, I’ve had a really rough day.
X, no biggie. By the way, the purple chicken left some recipes for you.
” But I’ll garrantee you’ll never win the South by running a Boston Yankee Liberal. I’m a Southerner (by the grace of God), and I fully intend to support Democrats. If Democrats have made me see the light, why can’t you do the same for my Southern Brethren?”
X, buddy, I think you answered you own question there. I lived in Oklahoma for a long time (I can still drawl with a little practice), so I think I qualify as an honorary Southerner. I’ve voted for both Boston Yankee Liberals AND Southerners. One of the most admirable politicians I’ve ever seen was Congressman Mike Synar, quite literally an “Okie from Muskogee.”
But I suspect you know WHY many of your Southern brethren won’t vote for a “Boston Yankee Liberal,” and it’s usually the same reasons they won’t vote for Democrats even in their own hometowns. We need to work on that: “What’s the matter with Kansas?,” redux.
XXX
I’ll not argue points on which you and I mostly agree.Namely guns and abortion. YOU know I am reasonable on these matters and yes it is my and other Dems job to convince the nation at large.
I wish you had not made me go to attack the South. Consider it less an attack and more a surrender.
What I next post is NOT in any way a reflection on you.
The South is unwinnable. The first reason is racism. The south was solidly Democrat until the Civil Rights movement and attendant changes. Say what you like. The reality is that racism is alive and well in the south.
The second reason relates to the first. Distrust of government. The South has never forgotten the Civil War. That they were defeated by “big government” against their “local interests” has never set well. That this was reaffirmed by the Civil Rights laws of the 60’s only aggravated that. Now, distrust of “big government” is USED by the “conservatives” to lie the South into almost blind devotion to the GOP. The “federal Government ” is to them an old and ever present enemy. They do not trust it. They’d rather starve and die than think or change. Alabama has the lowest standard of living in the entire United States and it remains defiantly a “red state” Texas is not far behind. And in Texas it is a matter of pride that local government meets only very rarely. It was also Texas that gave us George Bush. A man not of government but of priviledged name who prided himself on NOT governing except to the interests of the priviledged.
The plantation mentality is still alive.
Finally as to Ralph Nader. Is he arrogant? Yup. Arrogance is born of knowing you are right and being just a bit (or more) in contempt of the less enlightened. We see it all the time on these blogs. Mostly concerning religion. Dif is Ralph IS right.America is so wrongly headed and to a part misinformed or stupid that ego gets confused with knowledge.
XXX,Obviously you were having a bad day. I wasn’t climbing on your ass. I was making talking points as to where and why the Democrats weren’t getting this plan out. And doing so as an average voter.
As for having to be force fed a plan worked out by the democrat council: I read three newspapers a day, read this as well as many other blogs and on-line feeds, and haven’t heard of this plan, other than by you. I consider myself well rounded in most of the various party politics, but I visit neither the republican, democrat, nor libertarian home pages. I know what I will get there from any one of the three: advertisements and spin. If this plan is only being shown on the democrat home pages, than wouldn’t you consider that spin? So if I want to be force fed, I’ll do it myself, thank you.
JR, you are correct in the south is still racist. I’ve seen it too many times since I moved out here to believe otherwise. But I don’t think the south is lost. The bigger cities are more tolerant than the outskirts, and getting the proper message to them could swing them out of the republican line of fire. And it could swing the whole state if done properly.
But whoever does get the nod will have to go on the attack, showing what has gone wrong since the republicans took over, and have a workable plan on how to correct it that will pass public scrutiny.
XXX–
Are you saying the Democrats can take the South, but only if they don’t run a New England Yankee?
Why should the Democrats pander to that kind of provincialism?
Only two Democrats have won the presidency–actually THREE if you count Gore who got the most votes in 2000–since 1980, Carter, Clinton and the aforementioned Gore.
All of them were from the South.
Meanwhile Kerry and Dukkakis (New Englanders) lost, with every Southern state going red.
If a Southern Democrats run, the rest of the country will support them. If a Northern Democrat runs, the South gives him the finger.
I’m for one and sick and tired of having to run Southerners so the South will support us. The last election showed that the Presidency can be won without the South. Maybe that’s what it’s going to take to get these folks out of their “Gone with the Wind” mindset.
I am going to disagree with the contention that there is a “unitary south” any more. I don’t think all voters there are exactly alike.
A couple of cases in point: Atlanta is what, around 70% African American? - I don’t see them voting for Repubs predominantly; Huntsville, Alabama - has (last I knew) one the highest concentrations of aero-space scientists and engineers of anywhere else in the country - probably the world.
I think the sun-belt migration changed the demographic make-up of the south.
Certainly there are more religious/value oriented voters in the rural parts of the south. I contend that they can be convinced of what little return they are getting from their votes for Bush and such Republicans.
I believe that Democrats can win with the south once again. They just have to really want to, is all. I did not see that with Kerry’s campaign, other than his nomination of Edwards; after which he preceeded to hide Edwards and pull his teeth in terms of campaigning. As I state above, Kerry did not seem to really want to win. I reiterate the next nominee, needs to want to win.
I find all this talk about the democrats’ messaging problems interesting.
They need to take a play from the gop book and get the media to actually REPORT their message.
Example, Steven Colbert’s performance this weekend. The preznit and his wife were really pissed at his comments and snubbed him after the show. Where is the story on that?
I lifted this from another blog:
“The AP’s first stab at it and pieces from Reuters and the Chicago Tribune tell us everything we need to know: Colbert’s performance is sidestepped and marginalized while Bush is treated as light-hearted, humble, and funny. Expect nothing less from the cowardly American media.
The story could just as well have been Bush and Laura’s discomfort and the crowd’s semi-hostile reaction to Colbert’s razor-sharp barbs.
In fact, I would guess that from the perspective of newsworthiness and public interest, Bush-the-playful-president is far less compelling than a comedy sketch gone awry, a pissed-off prez, and a shell-shocked audience.
This is the power of the media to choose the news, to decide when and how to shield Bush from negative publicity. Sins of omission can be just as bad as sins of commission.”
So do ya think there is a reason the only place you can find the dem’s message is on their own website? The dems need to work on their media skills. Like brown nosing commentators, putting out half truths in their press releases, etc.
Then when all else fails, they blame the media for their own shortcomings.
I think dems have a lot to learn in “manipulation 101″.
“after which he preceeded to hide Edwards and pull his teeth in terms of campaigning.”
Actually, that’s not exactly right, DD. Edwards had the unenviable job of “selling the South,” hitting small communities where he was often greeted by hostile protesters. I heard a story on NPR and I was impressed: The protesters chanted “four more years” and, rather than ignoring them, Edwards said “Whaddya think? Four more years? Four more years of. . .” and, with that motif, preceded to tear Bush a new one.
But we never heard about it.
I do agree that he should have been more visible nationally.
I think at all levels of government, the reason bad people always win and good people rarely win is because good people are never willing to stoop as low as bad people.
Bad people will do ANYTHING to win, no matter how many lies need to be told, no matter who gets hurt, no matter how shameful the tactics, they will do ANYTHING to win.
I think the dems’ non-winning ways have more to do with how low they are not willing stoop, not how good their plans may be. So…how’s that working for the dems?
They need to grow up and play the game the way the cons do. I say meet them blow for blow and then listen to them cry like little girls (sorry to little girls) about those mean ol’ liberals.
Dirty and mean do not have to be the sole provinces of the cons and the republicans. The “end justifies the means” is a conservative mantra.
Those tactics seem to work with american voters. And at the end of the day, arent they the ones at fault for rewarding evil and voting the bastards into office?
Almost all political polls show voters hate negative adds. And almost all measurements show they work. Could most american voters be more hypocritical?
Only if they lived in kansas.
The dems are the party of affirmative action and massive third world immigration and they have been waging war upon working and middle class White Christian Americans since the start of the snivel rights movement. The dems are nuts if they think that we Whites and Confederates in particular will hand over our votes to the party of kennedy and liebermann!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
“As I state above, Kerry did not seem to really want to win. I reiterate the next nominee, needs to want to win.”
DD, I TOTALLY agree with that. This whole damn mess started because Ann Richards (the last REAL governor of Texas) really didnt want to win a second term. If she had campaigned as hard against shrub as she did against claytie, she could have won.
Kerry and his “I am above the fray” is the same as not being willing to stoop as low as the bushies. Did he not want to get his hands dirty, or did he just not care? Or did he trust the american voters to see through the lies and reward honesty? ROFLMAO!!
I see how well standing on virtue has been working for the dems. The voters do not reward it and in fact, they punish it. And while we vote these criminals BACK into office, the voters continue to say, all the way to the polls “I hate politics because it is so dirty”.
Well DUH. Who allows it to be that way?
KFG
You are RIGHT.
I have heard nothing about Colbert. Your post is the first I even knew about it. I hope I can find more on that. I did see the Bush impersonator v. bush. I gotta watch Cspan. Maybe catch this Colbert thing.
JR, Cspan is broadcasting it again, but I dont know when.
XXX is correct that this 06 election is about the SOUL of america. Why?
“President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
If Melissa is gonna shill Krauthead again, let me shill Hornberger…
“In his bracingly clear and concise article, Hornberger debunks two common but utterly misguided objections to these statements of fact.
The first objection is that Bush can be trusted and that, in effect, he “means well,” that he’s only trying “to protect us.”
Among many other problems, this ignores that every authoritarian leader in history has made the same claim: that his regime is concerned only with the good of his people, or the good of his country, or to further the will of God, or…
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/04/it-cant-happen-here.html
JR, here is a sample of what went on at the press dinner. Go to CSPAN.org for the schedule of repeats. I lifted this from another blog:
“Stephen Colbert spoke tonight at the dinner and lampooned pretty much everything he could think of and Helen Thomas.”
snip”As he walked from the podium the president and First Lady gave Colbert quick nods, unsmiling, and left. E&P’s Joe Strupp, in the crowd, observed that quite a few felt the material was, perhaps, uncomfortably biting.”
Snip
“Colbert complained that he was “surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides-the president’s side and the vice president’s side.”
He noted former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in the crowd, as well as ” Valerie Plame.” Then, pretending to be worried that he had named her, he corrected himself, as Bush aides might do, “Uh, I mean… Joseph Wilson’s wife.” He asserted that it might be okay, as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was probably not there.”
heheh. The bushistas didnt like it one bit…. heheh.
LeftHook, your hatred of the South is well documented. Let’s see, you called us traitors and demand contrition for a war 140+ years ago.
“Only two Democrats have won the presidency–actually THREE if you count Gore who got the most votes in 2000–since 1980, Carter, Clinton and the aforementioned Gore.
All of them were from the South.”
Maybe that’s a winning stratigy? Maybe Southern values are more in sync with the nation than the values of northeastern liberals? Could it be that the average American doesn’t identify with Ivory Tower-type liberals?
“Meanwhile Kerry and Dukkakis (New Englanders) lost, with every Southern state going red.)
A good indication again, that New Englander’s views are not representitave.
“If a Southern Democrats run, the rest of the country will support them. If a Northern Democrat runs, the South gives him the finger.”
There’s a message in that. Do you see it? It’s not just the South giving the finger, it includes a major part of the rest of the country.
“I’m for one and sick and tired of having to run Southerners so the South will support us. The last election showed that the Presidency can be won without the South. Maybe that’s what it’s going to take to get these folks out of their “Gone with the Wind” mindset.”
LeftHook, if you feel a need to throw yourself on your own sword, by all means, be my guest.Please don’t take the rest of us with you.Run another insular northeast Yankee, and lose another election. Run a Southerner or somebody from the Southwest, or California for that matter, and you may win.
And by the way, we’re just fine with our “Gone With the Wind” mindset, thankyou.
“I doubt too many average voters read the above websites. What you linked to makes the democrats sound like they finally are getting it together. So why arn’t they getting this out to the general public? Why do I have to go to aome democrat website to read this, since I am an independant?”
Maybe it has something to do with the Right-wing media.
XXX
It is a little difficult NOT to have at least a little contempt for the South. As I posted above, folks down there seem almost defensively stupid.
And comments like the one I just typed are USED by people like Rush to paint the left as contemptuous of “dumb redneck hillbilles with shotgun racks”SO I guess I am part of the problem for doing nothing more than being honest. For that,I’m an “ivory tower” elitist.
So not only do they get to stay dumb in the south and elsewhere they get to be arrogant about it.
I’m sorry XXX I don’t hate the South. But they are wrong headed. They are hard headed about it. And I will say again that if we compromise to win all we will win IS compromise.
And I for one am sick of compromising.
Reach left or reach south? I vote reach left. The south does not want to be reached. Tennessee son Al Gore is all I’m prepared to give them. And the people in his OWN STATE wouldn’t stand with their very best before. They may have learned from that mistake. I hope so.
Check out the full Colbert story here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-durang/ignoring-colbert-part-tw_b_20130.html
Thanks kfg, I’ll check that out.
Colbert is a funny guy….unless you’re a bushie. Then he looks a little to uncomfortably familiar.
“It is a little difficult NOT to have at least a little contempt for the South. As I posted above, folks down there seem almost defensively stupid.”
Strangely enough, Southerners feel the same way about Yankees.
“Reach left or reach south? I vote reach left.”
I really wish you luck. I do. But my gut feeling is, whoever wins the South wins the election.
Principals get in the way of winning. I predict that once again, we’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
For the record, I didn’t say that Southerners TODAY are traitors, but the ones that tried to violently overthrow the democratically elected government of the United States in 1860 most certainly were.
If you support what they did, then you support traitors. If you say, “the South will rise again,” how are the rest of us supposed to interprete that?
You think Southerners will support a Californian any more than they will a New Yorker?
I don’t. And frankly after seeing this part of the country vote for its narrow parochial sons all my life, I starting to really not give a damn about them.
Cliff Notes on Democratic security successes;
John Kennedy successfully averts nuclear warLyndon Johnson fails in Viet NamJimmy Carter fails in IranBill Clinton fails in Samolia
Where are the John Kennedy Democrats?
LeftHook, you called Southerners traitors. In your context, There was no indication that you meant Southerners of yesteryear. We can do a bone check if you like.
“the ones that tried to violently overthrow the democratically elected government of the United States in 1860 most certainly were.”
You need to read your history. The South made no attempt to “violently overthrow” the government. They ceceeded from the Union. At that time, there was nothing in the constitution that forbade it. The War of the Insurection was no different than the War of Rebellion against England. Northerners controlled the government, a situation that became intolerable to the South.To say that the South tried to “violently overthrow” the government is a flat-out lie.
“If you support what they did, then you support traitors. If you say, “the South will rise again,” how are the rest of us supposed to interprete that?”
No, I don’t support what they did at this point in time. If I’d ben around then, my answer would be different.
And I would say the South has indeed risen again. They’re an economic powerhouse. And in many cases, they decide who gets to be president. How’s that for “risen”?
As I’ve said before, your hatred of the South is well documented, so your opinion doesn’t carry much weight. But if the Democratic party is as narrow-sighted as you are, get ready for another 8 years in the swamp.
XXX,
This last one was an excellent post. I think splitting the Southern and Northern Democats has been a long time winning strategy for the Repubs. As Randy Newman would suggest, to consider people in the South as “Dumb Ass Crackers”, is to signify how little one knows about today’s South.
Rage suggests otherwise above, but I think Kerry was afraid of Edwards and placed him in low-profile campaign assignments toward the end of the 2004 effort.
I lean toward NE Democrat Ivy League liberals, but also know they don’t have the populist message they need unless they are accompanied by Southern Democrats.
As the great Kansan Thomas Frank once said:”The candidate with the best populist message will win hands down.”
My hope is that our NE and Southern friends can get together to find that message, so we are not stuck with this utter B.S. we have seen the last 8 years.
XXX
You are correct. The south only sought to leave the union. They did not attack it except in self defense of this. They were not therefore “traitors”. The word “dissidents” is probably more applicable.
That said, their STATED cause was the protection of their own way of life and commerce. In their pursuit of states rights they were justified. But their pursuit of states rights and their own way of life and commerce was centered on something sinister, namely to perpetuate an economy centered on and built by slavery.
Some noble cause.
I wonder how many slave owners died in the civil war. Not many I suspect. No it was the poor but proud that did the fighting and dying for a cause they really had no stake in at all beyond their belief that it was just because their leaders told them so. (Kind of like today?)
And what remains is a south that continues to distrust “yankees” and government based on a sentimental tie to a lost war for a bad cause.
The south has risen? How?I mean besides their political clout. Look at the standard of living in Alabama. I’d post links if I could. Look at Texas with bush and De Lay and the corruption. Economic powerhouse? Yeah companies used to move down there to get away from unions. Now they go FURTHER south.
I do not hate the south XXX. I do not UNDERSTAND the south. What do they want? Why do they embrace corruption and poverty so they can yell about how free they are? Why do they so despise the very government that should work for them? Why do they so trust as ever the monied masters?
I’ve given up hope on the south. Maybe you can share why I and the DNC should not. I’ll listen.
Excuse my last sentence, in ‘98 and ‘99 if you weren’t working, it was because you did not want to.
Different story these days.
This country’s problems started in 2001 when this president took “control”.
JR:”You are correct. The south only sought to leave the union. They did not attack it except in self defense of this. They were not therefore “traitors”. The word “dissidents” is probably more applicable.”
Hey JR,I am a dissident of BushAmerica. Are you trying to say you aren’t? Sorry, my friend I know you are.
I have a bumper sticker, inspired by the near future science fiction writer, William Gibson, which says - “Cognitive Dissidents” - (it is an obvious take-off from the social psychology term) which I tell those who ask about it - thinking persons disagree with the Bush paradigm. Most get it, with that explanation.
Surely, I don’t have to extend an invitation to you, to join us, do I?
Sorry, now I will read the rest of your post.
Sorry JR,
I think you have a too biased assessment of the south. It is more complex than you describe.
Full disclosure here: My mother was born in Texas; her ancestors fought in the Union Army during the Civil war; and my father’s ancestors fought in the North Carolina Army during the Revolutionary War.
So my sourthern roots, English and Irish, run pretty deep.
But, my main point is that it is necessary to put away our disputes about the past and look to what we can do for America’s future. Do you want to leave that to the Republicans? I am as sure as I can be that you don’t.
JR, DD, thanks for some support. I was starting to wonder…..
JR, like many Northerners, you don’t understand the South. Nice thing about winning a war…the winners get to write their version of history.
“But their pursuit of states rights and their own way of life and commerce was centered on something sinister, namely to perpetuate an economy centered on and built by slavery.
JR, in this enlightened age, we all agree that slavery is dispicable. But slavery was a way of life in this country 150-250 years ago. There was nothing sinister about it. And it was nation wide, not just the South. According to the mores of the time, there was nothing wrong with owning slaves.
“I wonder how many slave owners died in the civil war.”
Most or them died or were imprisoned. As I’ve said, different time. The Antibellum South wasn’t a place where the monied rich were aloof from the rest of the population. The land owners were the officer class in the local militias. When the war came, these same officers led their men into battle. Officers in the Confederate Army didn’t SEND their met to war, they LED them, and were the first to be cut down. In the South, a man’s honor is his defining attribute. It was not considered an honorable thing to be cowardly or hold back in battle.
“Why do they so despise the very government that should work for them?”
Our land was burned and confiscated, our women were raped and killed, our children were slaughtered, and our society was pillaged and destroyed. A new era of slavery was introduced (Jim Beam, Carpet Baggers).
While we may forgive, we shall never forget.