We have met the enemy, and they are us. I’m sure that Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy are spinning in their collective graves.
As much as I dislike the President, I’ll give him his due and say that he made the most of the resources of his office and played the game well. For the first time in 50 years, the GOP now has control of both the legislative and executive branches, and will no doubt use the opportunity to fill the federal judiciary with like-minded jurists. Them that wins the elections gets to make the rules.
Now what for my fellow Dems? Please tell me we’re not going to be asked to follow Dick Gephardt. The man is as bland as unsalted butter. If he’s the best we can do, let’s save everyone the time and expense and just give Bush an extended lease on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue now.
The Democratic Party needs to heed this wakeup call. I’ve sent 5 different emails and letters to state party headquarters offering to volunteer and provide some services. I have yet to hear back from them except to receive a plea for cash. It takes grass roots efforts, organization, sweat, guts, and the balls to take unpopular positions on issues you feel strongly about in order to make a difference. I saw none of that in evidence. I saw a weak, ineffectual, issue-less, leader-less, and sorry bunch of wusses. Hell, we couldn’t even win the Governorship in Maryland with a Kennedy. Maryland for crying out loud!
The Dems have become “The Republican Light Party.”
I am not a Democrat, but here’s what I think the Democrats need to do:
First, take advantage of the poor economy. Ask where job creation is coming from. Question the outsourcing of America. Part of NAFTA and other trade agreements was predicated on a Global Economy, meaning a larger market place for American goods and services. Reality is starting to look like an outflow of manufacturing jobs and services to other countries. Propose a tax on companies that shift jobs overseas and particularly find ways to close loopholes for companies that are shifting headquarters and revenues overseas to evade taxes.
Second, stick with the Bush on the “war on terrorism” but not on a war on Iraq, unless it is supported by fact instead of innuendo, and world opinion also supports it. But do remain the lever against the loss of civil liberties. If we lose our civil liberties then the terrorists have already won. Hehe.
Third, focus on education. In addition to the JEB winning in Florida a referendum was passed to decrease class size and increase early school options. Make sure that this does not become an unfunded mandate or that regressive taxes do not pay for this. Make Bush the Tan play ball.
Fourth, find a way to energize voters. This was clearly missed on this go round. From what I understand this election should not have gone so badly for the Dems. Was an apathetic and defeated Democratic electorate to blame? And if so, why?
Oh, another thing? Why wasn’t Enron and the President’s connections played up as major issue? Even though he wasn’t up for election, this seems to have been forgotten and swept under the rug. There is a hell of a lot of corporate malfeasance out there. I’m sure many Dems are just as dirty, but since when did politics become hostage to the truth. Dems should examine some of Bush’s campaign tactics, eg, innuendo and rumor instead of direct attack, attacks on the other parties strongest candidate during the primaries, etc and do the same. The American public seems to go for it even though they claim to be tired of dirty tricks.
Stop grooming candidates based on old profiles that have worked in the past. Enough with the lawyers from well-connected firms, get someone from business or academia who actually has an agenda, some ideas on how to make things better. Drop the “connected family” types, too - If a Kennedy can’t get it done in Maryland, then that tactic has run it’s course.
There are a huge number of economic conservatives who hate the social agenda of the right, but don’t have the option of voting for a democrat who shares those values. In short, look at Clinton (Bill). Find more people like him and run them.
…why is John F. Kennedy considered to be a great president? He got the US involved in Vietnam (on a whim, apparently), brought the US to the brink of nuclear war (Cuba) , and allowed himslf to be utterly cowed by Nikita Kruschev. True, he had a glamorous wife (who was a very shallow woman in reality), and got his head blown off in Dallas (occasioning much national mourning), but exactly what did JFK DO that was so great? I live in Massachusetts, and I consider the whole Kennedy clan to be a plague upon my house. Those people are nothing but demagogues, and I think the American people are heartily sickof them (with good reason).
For my money, JFK was a very good president militarily and economically. Where he really shone, though, was rhetorically. He and Reagan were the best presidents in the last half of the 20th century in articulating the American idea to the world.
Our struggle against totalitarianism was a battle of ideas, and Kennedy was a great warrior.
It’s not for nothing that he’s so respected worldwide. I have visited 18 different nations, and the number of streets and squares named after Kennedy is humbling.
Not only don’t the other members of his family stack up, the rest of his party doesn’t either.
“And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” -John F. Kennedy
"“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” —George W. Bush
As to Kennedy bringing the country to the brink of nuclear war and being cowed by the Soviets, unless I’m mistaken the Soviets did, in fact, remove their nuclear weapons from Cuba.
Kennedy may not have actually accomplished a tremendous number of things, but he did instill a sense of purpose and pride in a new generation of Americans. We need that again - both Democrat or Republican.
I think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have happened to who ever was president at the time. Most people agree that JFK handled the crisis very well.
The Dems today do need some new leadership. Tom and Dick just are not getting the job done. It will be interesting to see if McCain-Fiengold has any effect (or will be allowed to have any effect) next time around.
One thing I think the Dems should insist on is an investigation from the Feds on who was handing out those flyers in MD.
The Republicans fought harder to win this time, plain and simple. The Dems need to fight harder and need to call the Repbulicans on the issues. In short the Dems need to be proud to be Democrates.
One thing Democrats need to do is, once and for all, admit that Nader didn’t cost them the 2000 elections. Tuesday proved that Democrats can lose elections all by their lonesome.
And that’s what happened, I think. With so many repulsive Democrats running (I can’t believe I actually cast a vote for Erskine Bowles!), so many rich, fiscally-conservative, socially-moderate guys running for office on an agenda almost indistinguishable from the fiscally-conservative, socially-coservative agendas of their opponents, it was real hard for Dems to get excited by this election.
The party needs to go to its roots and talk to people – not about how to raise the most money, not about how to pull in the biggest names for races – but about what people care about.
They need to formulate a plan, a plan that addresses
-the working poor (how about a party platform calling for a $10 minimum wage, indexed to inflation, to be phased in over ten years?)
-Health Care (how about a party platform calling for universal health care for anyone under the age of 18?)
-Environment (how about a party platform calling for absolute corporate responsibility for any point-based pollution that harms public or private lands?)
and other issues. Bring in the Michael Moores, the Ralph Naders of the country – these folks may have some wacky ideas, but they have some good ideas too, and they ignite passion in a way that Dick Gephardt and Al Gore don’t.
Stop being so quiveringly terrified of the label “liberal.” Be fucking liberals. If I want to vote conservative, I’m gonna vote Republican anyway – don’t try to win the Republican vote.
Some comedian, I seem to think it was Chevy Chase, said that the day that Bush senior took office from Raegan was “The saddest day for comedians.” I’m looking at it that way. Sure, as a bleeding heart liberal, it may infuriate me the way the elections turned out (my own state, arguably the most liberal in the country, Vermont, has elected both Republican governor and lt. govs.) but I am making the choice to use the next four years to blame everything from the economy to the social construct of this country on the Republicans. There is something comforting about being the underdog.
And DanielWithrow, while I don’t blame Nader, I DO blame third party involvement. It’s the reason Vermont fell to the republicans. I’m all for more then two parties, but not when it just splits the liberals. FOUR parties. That’s what we need.
The cuban missle crisis would have happened ( cuba would have been shipped nukes) no matter who was in charge. It took a strong leader to actually show some onions and make them ship them back. Since JFK I think only Reagan and maybe G.W.B. would also have the onions.
I am not a Democrat, but if I were the things I would be doing are:
-remove Bill Clinton from the head of the DNC-the man is poison for democratic candidates. he (Clinton) should stick to touring the world and giving speeches.
-admit that the “great Society” is dead-the myth won’t fly anymore, and Americans won’t pay for it anymore
-learn some basic economics
-retire the old fossils of the democratic party: people like Mondale, Kennedy,etc. these people have had their day-the party needs some non-senile leadership!
Finally, stopinsulting the intelligence of independent voters!
Terry McAuliffe is the head of the DNC, not Bill Clinton.
The Great Society as a set of programs may be in need of revision, but the concepts and values behiind it are still very much needed.
I take it that by basic economics you mean give the wealthiest tax payers a tax cut thereby reducing funds available for government programs while at the same time increasing spending. Or do you mean the Supply Side Economics as espoused by that Ronald Reagan (who was suffering Alzheimer’s Disease while still President of the United States).
I agree that new leadership and an invigorated membership is what will save the party.
I don’t know that the intelligence of independent voters was insulted by the Democrats any more so than it was by the Republicans. On that account, both parties are equally short sighted.