What now?
I've heard people already saying this shows the Democrats need to make fundamental changes. By this they mean going right wing. Why? By any measure we are the centrist party of America. A couple of weeks ago I watched Brad Carson debate Tom Coburn. I was really surprised at how right wing Carson, the Democrat, was. Yet he still lost to a nutcase who wants the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions. How can you compete with that? This election has also been compared to Goldwater in 1964. Yet he lost for being too right wing. Today's Republicans are further to the right. And far more dishonest. Coupled with the Goldwater comparsion, the media tell us we must change. But the point is that the Republicans didn't move to where the voters were. They changed the landscape.
There is a real sickness in this Christian fundamentalism. It's like a cult that is making Americans blind to truth and reason. Tim Russert asked Bob Kerrey how Democrats can do better on 'moral issues'. He quite rightly pointed out that the only way to appease the growing band of people who perceive this as the critical issue is to turn anti-abortion. There's no slick compromise or third way. Either we change entirely, or we lose these people's votes. And we cannot and should not do this . It's a no-win situation.
here are a few suggestions:
1)What I find extraordinary is that no one has any answers as to what we did wrong. Kerry, despite what the likes of Judy Woodruff say, was a damn fine candidate, and he ran a damn fine campaign. He's a war hero, he looks like a president, he's a fine speaker and comes across much better than the media pretended. Our platform is very centrist. He won all three debates, energised the base and won many swing voters. We have moderates for our leadership in the Congress. There is no obvious answer. But moving away from the basic ideas of our platform would be wrong. There is no need for some radical shift to either wing of the party. As Bill Clinton says, 'our way works best'.
2) Bully the media to be fair. Not biased, but truly fair. The media never thought Kerry would win, and this hurt us a lot. The right have been stunningly good at turning the media right wing through accusations of left wing bias. I saw a documentary on the rise of the religious right. In it, they showed a report from the early eighties, in which Judy Woodruff (one of the worst offenders) called Jerry Falwell's group a 'far-right group'. They would never say that now. Yet they are. We need our own Fox (but honest) and some kind of balancing liberal Christian coalition. A left wing network of institutions is needed. We've made a good start with Air America, Media Matters and Moveon. Yet there is no easy route to get on TV. There are no talking heads for the Democrats who can throw out accusations that political insiders would not be able to. How often do you see a TV debate with some centrist Democratic pol or strategist (thus with a responsibility to remain civil) against Ann Coulter or some such nutcase. That's not balance. The media accept the right as acceptable extremism, while the left are scorned.
3)We need to be more aggressive. I don't believe in character assassination, but Democrats and the media have to be more open to calling Republicans on personal hypocrisy. Why did the media think Clinton (who never professed to be an angel) deserved to have his personal life scrutinised, while Gingrich's is excused? Also, Dems are too willing to give ground. We all pretty much accepted McCain as a national hero. Now, I agree with this. Yet, the Repubs would never allow a Dem to be seen in that light. There is always a dissenting, critical right wing voice about ANY Democrat. It's the same with Colin Powell. I'm not saying we should not admire these brave men, but I am saying that we should be more reserved in our fawning and praise. They are still Republicans.
Any other ideas?
good start
Kerry was an excellent candidate. Maybe a bit too "senatorial" in his delivery...do you remember him early on doing the Larry King show? He was great. His arguments and delivery were dead on. That seemed to change a bit, I think due to some bad advisors, and it hurt.
Your suggestion that we need to be more aggressive is spot on. Nationally. We cannot continue to let the media, right wing or otherwise to bully us.
I would like to suggest a change in leadership. Someone without too much baggage and does not compromise our basic beliefs. No concessions. Any thoughts? How about the governor of New Mexico...
I apoloigze...I can't think of his name right now...I keep going back up and reading your post, come across Ann Coulter's name and become dizzy with nausea.
Go back to basics
I agree with you that John Kerry was a very fine candidate. The problem was not all John Kerry. The main problem was that John Kerry took too long to find his voice. We keep moving to the center to keep up with Republicans. We are more centrist than ever. We should go back to the basics of what the Democratic party stands for. We should speak about real Christian morality. Help your neighbor. Feed the poor. A message of unity that highlights the inconsistencies in Republican morality. A message that quotes from the Bible, "Let he without sin, throw the first stone". Instead of moving to the center, we should move to the left. We should really give people a choice and show them where we stand. I know that everyone will say that Bill Clinton moved to the center. Bill Clinton was the exception. Bill Clinton only had the House and Senate for two years so how effective was he. Also, we need a personality. Let's be real. But Bill Clinton had the personality.
Parties don't win and lose campaigns. Candidates win and lose campaigns. Many members of the middle class were turned off by John Kerry's wind surfing. He was viewed as just a Republican in Democrat's clothing. Howard Dean highlighted the issues for the American people but he had an air of arrogance that turned people off. So did Al Gore. We need someone who has lived through the struggles of the middle class and can voice those concerns in a resounding way. Most people don't really follow the issues that closely but grow attached to the product. The candidate. An impassioned voice for the Democratic party that takes no prisoners. Al Sharpton is the perfect candidate if only he was not black. Most Southerners would not vote for him. I believe that Al Sharpton was the most impassioned Democrat throughout the primaries. His one liners stole the debates. People are drawn to someone who is witty and quick with a comeback.
In the meantime, we must hold our representatives in Congress accountable for every minuscule wrong move. We must watch them like hawks. We should encourage our Democratic members of Congress to not give an inch on issues such as Social Security and the Energy Bill. It is possible for members of Congress to block these initiatives. Arlen Specter still has a chart of Hillary Clinton's health care bill that he successfully blocked on his office wall when he was in the Senate minority.
We need to fight back!
The GOP are very good at distracting people from the real issues such as jobs, the economy, etc. It is now our turn, since the reelection to ask for accountability. I think that with the all the problems and lying from the Bush presidency that nobody the Democratic Party did not jump on them quick enough or push hard enough. I think that we were trying not to hurt ourselves by going against Bush but at the time Bush attack Kerry on issues that the President over embelished. Let us make Bush accountable!!! Making sure that with each screw up it is shown and displayed for all those people that voted for him because a war was going on. The GOP did it when Clinton was President, we should take a lesson from them and investigate and throw it in the face of all Americans. Show the red states the discrepencies with how the Bush family deals with family values, their paychecks and that their sons and daughters will die for a cause that they elected to continue. We should all take a class called "How to lie and steal from the people who place you in power and have them love you for it".
I agree...
I think the republican party is a terrable party-- but they disguise their bad nature with religious curtains. They're heartless-- and I don't understand why the public is so blind to that. I do Not believe the Democratic party needs to change-- they just need to strategize better. We've almost got all the edges. Then we just have to work our way through the core. There is so much hate in the middle of America today........ All of that "eye for an eye" type stuff is chilling. Hopefully things will change up-- And now that Bush is reelected-- I hope he does better for these next four years... and I also hope that people realize their error. I wonder what history books are going to say about this one :-P
And on Religion...
Everything Bad in history has stemmed from Religion........ It's nice to have faith-- but I'm not so sure that people handle their religous beliefs the right way. They just use them to pressure people into conforming.. and hating on those who do not. Times are changing-- and it's time to modernize religon as well....
Church and Government are supposed to be separate... When people get hired for a job, they are hired because they are the ones that are best qualified for the position... not because of the way they smile.. their appearance.. the church they go to and the schools they went to.. it's because of what they are right then and there.. (Although.. I do realize that some of the Bush voters did believe he was well qualified and did a great job...)
Reply to LiberalGirl
You can continue to mistakenly press forward in your life believing that an effective Smile and crisp Appearance don't matter. You're Dead on Arrival. Ask yourself: Who wants to hire a sulking, foul faced individual that looks like they're always at the head of the soup line at the Salvation Army?.... Would reasonable female business owners embrace this immage, when they clearly have other positive choices that lift their business immage in the eyes of the consumer? I seriously doubt it.
ps. Brains are a given. That's simply table-stakes to apply for the job.
LiberalGirl - You're Right!
WOW! You couldn't be more Right. The Democratic Party doesn't need to do anything differently. Just "Keep on Do'in What You're Do'in!"
Yeah, and throw in some "better strategy" here and there and things are Way Cool! Those Stupid Republicans will fold like a tent. Abe Lincoln
a couple of ideas
Maybe don't run a candidate
1. who puts forth a major health care plan withouth explaining how he is going to pay for it
2. constantsly complains about social security privatization without even once explaining how he would fix social security
3. says he believes life begins at conception but has voted against the partial-birth abortion ban 6 times
4. who is the most liberal person ever to run for the presidency
5. who takes 10 different positions on 1 of the biggest issues in the election before finally choosing a position during the last 2 months of the campaign
6. who votes for pieces of legislation then spends 2 years complaining about the bills saying they are wrong and need to be fixed.
Actually the real thing that needs to happen is getting rid of Terry McAuliffe. You guys will never win a major election with him in charge.
to maxsand
Thanks for reading my reply :-)
Ok-- So appearance do matter a ton-- and that's probably why Bush was reelected-- but the surface can be misleading. I am sugguesting people look deeper....
~~~~~~~~
LiberalGirl
mythoughtsarehalf-baked
grhino
Tax dollars are what pay for that health care... I would assume Kerry planned on changing the budget?
And you have to keep in mind that people are occasionally bribed into voting a certain way.. perhaps he was voting one way so he could gain something else? ... unfortunately.. that does happen. It's one of those "favors"
~~~~~~~~
LiberalGirl
mythoughtsarehalf-baked
To LiberalGirl Again
Respectfully. You don't get it. People don't vote based on Logic. They vote based on Emotion. Getting frustrated at the fact that people "just don't think thru the issues" is an exercise in stupidity. It won't, has'nt and never will happen. That's simple, predictable human behavior. People vote their Hearts (emotion). He who can touch that emotion most, will always win irrespective of the facts, situation, circumstances, issues, blah,blah,blah. That's who we are as people. Something DNC Chair Terry Mc is dead from the neck up on understanding.
This is where the turn begins
In comment to people who vote on emotion. I think that in the next three months we will see a change from supporting of Bush to not. A lot of people voted for Bush hoping he will turn things for the better in Iraq. The "election" that may happen in January and stability before hand needs to be put in place. If stability does not occur and election are tainted you will see more people asking tough questions of the president and the popularity vote will diminish.
Hellow, Wake Up!
Fact. The Dude is in the Drivers Seat for 4 more years! Wishing and Hoping are NOT brilliant nor compelling strategies. Of course people change their minds based on emotion. You do. Perhaps everyday on some things. Moreover, Popular vote doesn't mean squat until the mid-term elections. The tough questions should be directed to the DNC BrainDead and the Core of the Democratic Party. The RePubs have got their shit in one bag. We don't. Tom Daschle
Courage, America
Though I think of myself as an Independent rather than a Democrat, I whole heartedly supported John Kerry in the Presidential Election.
I am hopeful John Kerry will take a leadership role in the Senate, and by example help Americans recognize:
* With courage, we can overcome our fears.
* Intelligence is a positive attribute.
* One's moral fabric is exemplified by works as well as words.
* The majority of Americans really do want healthcare, minimum wage increases, strong international relations, and a world that is more just at home and abroad.
Kerry '08 ? These are extraordinary times, I think the Red Sox can attest to that.
Courage! Be Great!
maxsand
Id hate to think that people can never get off of voting on emotion. I mean-- If you're super emotional, you don't think straight.. and thinking is a must. Im sure people that voted for Bush had some thought behind their actions-- Although.. unfortunately.. I have heard people vote for Kerry because they are angry with Bush-- thus all that "Anything But Bush"-ness.
I think change is Bound to happen sometime.. good or bad. I think we just need a good speaker that is able to get through to emotional persons.... or someone who is able to get emotional people emotional about the issues :-)
~~~~~~~~
LiberalGirl
mythoughtsarehalf-baked
Understanding the Power of Emotion!
EVERYONE, and I do mean EVERYONE with NO EXCEPTIONS, moves forward in their life and makes decisions based first on EMOTION. That goes for voting, buying a car, choosing your friends,picking a restruant etc., you name it.
They then "justify" their purely emotional decision to themselves based on just enough "logic" to NOT make them feel stupid in the eyes of those people they care about and love when facing them with their decision. With anaylitical or intellectual people, they simply feel the need to provide themselves with more logical reasons for that justification. With others, there simply isn't that deep need to list an arms length of reasons for them feel justified in their decision to their friends.
Let me prove it to you. Why did you buy the shirt you're wearing? The answer is that you bought it because you LIKED it. Purely Emotional. You justified it to yourself because it was made well, it was a good value, the brand is well thought of, blah, blah, blah. You'll stop rationalizing to yourself when you personally feel that you won't look stupid to those you care about and/or love.
Just look at what happened. Exit polls asked people why they voted for Bush. You didn't get a long laundry list of hard, logical reasons that justified their voting preference. They voted their EMOTION and backed it with just enough "logic" in their minds to not feel stupid to the loved ones around them.
This is a frigg'in fact of life. Until the Party recognizes that only pushing policy is the guaranteed strategy for disaster going forward, then it hasn't learn a frigg'in thing about people in this election disaster.
this thing needs a chat room :-D (Completely Irrelevant)
And were the polls always empty?
~~~~~~~~
LiberalGirl
mythoughtsarehalf-baked
What now?
Pick ourselves up, dust off, and get started on 2008. First, I've got some ideas on how to move the faithful (mindless). Second, please, I'm begging you. I love Hillary, but she CANNOT win. I've been a feminist since 1964 and it grieves me to say this. Maybe in fifty years, maybe a century, I don't know. Ron Reagan, on the other hand, COULD win. He has everything it takes. I don't know if he could be persuaded to run, but he could be our best hope.
Reply to G Rhino
1. Kerry explained in full just exactly how he would pay for his concept of a health plan. The media didnt carry it in any form.
2. Kerry explained what was happening to SS and Medicare. Again, no one from the right wing ever heard his explanation and no media sources ever carried it. The people who heard Kerry speak heard about it.
3. Late term abortion has always been a medical stand-by when the health of the mother was at stake. As medicine modernized, fewer and fewer of these procedures were used. The fact that you use the term 'partial birth' shows clearly where you get your disinformation.
4. Kerry is hardly the most liberal person to run for the presidency. Bet you heard this from Rush--the high school graduate expert on almost everything...except maybe deafness caused by the overuse of illegal drugs.
5. 10 different positions on what biggest issue of the campaign? You forgot to tell us just what that issue is/was.
6. Again, your case to show why Kerry voted for this or that and then his complaints that they needed fixing...does not stand. Most of the bills crammed through the congress over the past 3 1/2 years are badly flawed...and yes...because of the flaws...they do need fixing. Kerry is not the only member of congress. Further, if you applied the standards of #6 to Bush--you would see real leadership failure.
Ummm...are you capable of independent thought? Aside from what Rush tells you?
you can't honestly be this stupid
1-2. ok, so kerry explained in full how he would pay for his health care plan and how he would fix social security...I never heard this, I watched all 3 debates, I have watched all 3 cable news networks, on a regular basis I watch Hardball, O'reilly factor, etc..Never heard a word except that he was going to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making over $200,000. Can you explain his plan or at least put a link to a website where its listed, cuz I really believe that you are lying about this.
3. No, I was actually referring to dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) where the baby is forced halfway to 3/4 through the birth canal and then stabbed at the base of the spine with scissors. So to me I do consider this "partial-birth" since the baby was partially born.
4. Again here you are flat out wrong, and I have the facts to prove it. http://adaction.org/votingrecords.htm Americans for Democratic Action: Since ADA's founding in 1947, the Annual Voting Records have served as the standard measure of political liberalism. (straight off their website) Look up Kerry, he's a 92 lifetime, higher than even Walter Mondale.
5. you honestly don't know?? IRAQ you moron..KERRY: "[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11"(Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)
KERRY: "This was the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." he said 30 different times, don't have the exact date
KERYY: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement ..." "...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02
KERRY: "I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)
6. Again, what are you talking about??? Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind, and Iraq war authorization. Yet the whole campaign he went around complaining about them and how they are messed up and need to be fixed. Well, don't vote for them then, idiot. Name 2 bills that Bush signed/supported that now he complains about and says need to be fixed. Can you name 2??
Yes, I am capable of independent thought, but you're just wrong on all the facts..so it actually looks like you're the talking head for the Democratic Party
What to do now.
We can't just sit around and wait for a charismatic candidate to bubble up in four years. Complaining about how the Democratic Party apparatus needs to be realligned (Don't get me wrong - it does.) isn't going to fix it either. Don't focus on who we should champion for the '08 race. Let's face it, the country, not just the Presidency continues to move to the right and no single Democratic candidate is going to stop that. The focus must be on the voter.
What Democratic voters need to do over the next four years is to examine the bases of the Right's ascendency and bring them back toward the Left.
Democrats have overlooked the one inclusive and organized base that's ripe for picking - organized religion. It's time to take back the Christian base from the conservatives. The Religious Right, Silent Majority, Christian Fundametalist Movement, whatever-you-want-to-call-it is a relatively new phenomenon that has been devised or at least co-opted by the Far Right. It was easy because the organizational structure was already there and it still is! Democrats need to fight back. Get involved in your church and make changes there. For every verse a rightwing Bible-thumper throws out at you, there are two more that prove the liberal bias to Christ's teachings. You may not be able to change doctrine or dictum, but you can discuss the morals and values of society in a way that brings back the cause of our commonwealth.
So much "Stupid" talk on this blog
I don't know if you guys realize this or not-- and I am new and have no idea how to start a new topic.. so I just respond.... and eventually I'll figure it out---
But you know... You can't just call eachother stupid, especially when your answers are all opinion* Yes, Opinion based. The answers given are all well thought out, and people Will and Can disagree... That is Fine... None of this is as concrete as asking what color a Blue Crayon is.
And All of this Stupid talk takes away from what you are actually saying-- im my case anyway. I see-- "Oh my god you are so dumb" both subtally and really blunt at times-- Just say what you mean, why you disagree-- rudeness is unnecessary, and im sure you're unknowingly preventing some people from wanting to post their views on some of the touchy arguments.
So my point-- Be Nice to Eachother* Our views are going to be different-- although overall they should come together somehow-- right? We're all a part of this blog for a reason.
~~~~~~~~
LiberalGirl
mythoughtsarehalf-baked
i agree wth "lingo" ... reaalignment (To an Extent).. Religion?
You know-- I had never really given thought to Clinton's having a way with his words and being able to speak to the south-- and I do agree that that is important. But at the same time, I feel that we weren't soooo far off.. and completely chaning the democratic views is really unnecessary. Religion in there?
I think we're being too hard on the Democratic Party-- We just had weak candidates-- or candidates that were too easily torn apart by the GOP. This time around, we need better planning and strategy... and you know-- Sometimes I feel that we should just stay out of the south all together and work around the edges, where the vote is CLOSE (Yes, it was REALLY close.. like 1-2% off close). Changing completely would make the two parties too similar, and then dems may loose some of the northern votes... They just need to stregnthen the their status in the states they have-- "Stregnthen their Base" .. becuase right now, the bease is all over the place .. and people here are saying not so good things about the base... and I think thats upsetting..... It's diverse.. Mixed Views-- We aren't all the same... And thats what the dems seem to stand for-- they are much more understanding that the GOPs that we are not doing so well...
And you have to admit.. Kerry focused on Economy after the War. Very few people knew Kerry's stances on anything because they were not put out there -- You had to go to his website, or listen to him at the debate for the time he wasn't talking about how bad bush was doing and how he just wanted to do Bush's policies differently. It was hard to read into that... People don't like uncertanty. Bush was just straigh forward.... And then because both candidates were not so great... people were torn. The War helped Bush-- People were Afraid. If kerry would have come off as some war crazy guy, people would have been all for him.
~~~~~~~~
LiberalGirl
mythoughtsarehalf-baked