Here is what David Podvin said:
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/050724_ForgingDiscord.htm
Excerpt:
The Democratic Party really suffers from two main problems that are closely linked to each other. First is the problem of not having a strong vision. The second is the desire to please all sides.
At the individual level many Democrats are not wimpy or scared. However, the party apparatus is scared and thus prevents the party from putting out a strong message. This allows the Republicans to use the media to portray all Democrats as ineffectual. Case in point: the Kerry campaign. Kerry was not too liberal; his record showed him a a middle-of-the-road Senate Democrat. Kerry was not a flip-flopper. The supposed “flip flops” cited were really examples of how business is done in Washington. We will remember that in spring and early summer '04, when the right wing propaganda machine was producing 500 reams a minute about Kerry’s supposed flip flops, Kerry was leading consistently in the polls.
Kerry’s problem was that he then clammed up and refused to say anything decisive, presumably because he feared that the talking heads would use whatever he said as proof of the anti-Kerry talking point du jour. So on Iraq Kerry’s position was that after he was elected the European countries would provide as with more soldier and then something would happen in Iraq or something. And his position on Social Security was, well, I can’t recall. So like I’ve said before, one clear position on Iraq and one clear position on Social Security would have given him the victory.
The other problem is the please all sides dogma. Certain groups are perceived as key to Democratic Party success: Blacks, Hispanics, feminists, environmentalists and organized labor are the main ones. It has simply become a concrete principle that the Democratic Party can’t dare to disobey any of these groups. This leads to paralysis. Take immigration for instance. Speak against it and you offend Hispanics, speak for it and you offend labor. So the party is left trying to make indecisive noises that will please both sides.
So the solution to all this? As others have said, put forth a clear legislative agenda and stick to it, regardless of criticism from the interest groups or withering attacks from the right wing propaganda machine. The Democratic version of the Contract with America 2006 probably ought to include:
-
Repeal the obnoxious pork barrel spending set up by the Republicans.
-
Use American troops only for national defense, never for nation building.
-
Increase fuel efficiency requirements and seriously promote research into alternate energy sources, thus reducing dependency on the Middle East.
-
Severely punish companies that violate labor law or employ illegal immigrants.
Excellent point. My favorite was during one of the televised anti-war protests in Washington, one of the organizing speakers (it might have been a young woman from ANSWER) did exactly what you said, then as she was pulling herself away from the mic, she jumped back up to it and yelled, “Free Mumia!” Priceless.
I just thought it was incredibly dumb to replace Dean with Kerry. So Dean gets excited and yells at a rally. Big deal! A candidate who can fire up a crowd will play way better than a dry explanation machine (i.e. a DEM).
What do you mean “set up by”? Do you honestly think that pork barrel spending is the mind-child of Republicans?
Nail of head, meet hammer.
How about JFK? If a democrat adopted is exact poolicy today he wouldn’t have a chance of getting the nomination. I think the majority of Americans are hungry for a candidate that doesn’t represent the extreme wing of either party. I think that explains the bipartisan popularity (palatability) of Joe Lieberman, John McCain, and Rudi Giulianni. These days, even Ed Koch looks right of center.
I remember the Daily Show showing some coverage of a protest, obstensibly about Iraq, but with so many other signs and the like that it was just a hodgepodge. Stewart’s response was classic, though I can’t remember it exactly.
Oops. Make that “head of nail”.
Exactly the sort of stuff we should see. Another couple:
-
Companies: pull an Enron under our watch, and we will come down on you like a sack of fucking hammers. We will be friendly to business, but only to business that follows the law. You may not screw people over under our watch, or you will cease to exist.
-
Budget: We are going to pay for our expenditures. Our children don’t need any more Republican debt. So if we decide that the country needs to spend money for something, we will tell you up front how we are going to pay for it, and that discussion will be central to the discussion of any new program, be it a war or a tax cut or a new social program or a new environmental law.
Daniel
That’s “extremism”? I think you misspelled “moderation.”
I’ve talking about the vision thing on this board a few times, too. The Democrats’ lack of one doesn’t compel me to vote against them, but I think it hurts them when they’re stacked up against the vision of the Republicans.
Funny, but again, this is expressed in the ‘it’s-the-opposite-of-what-the-GOP-is-doing’ fasion. That’s not a vision, it’s the problem.
Dean was done before that. He lost bigtime in Iowa because he was outcampaigned by Kerry and Edwards, and probably overhyped.
Look in the mirror, furt. :rolleyes:
There you go. What exactly is “extremist” about any of those things? Especially as none of them are true. The Democrats have not, actually, embraced the anti-war movement, in the past election or since. And only half the Senate Democrats voted against Roberts. And how, exactly, have they “overplayed their hand” WRT Katrina? Some Dems have expressed dissatisfaction with the Admin’s preparedness for and handling of the crisis – and that has not, as yet, appeared to provoke any anti-Dem backlash. But if these things were true, they still would not be extremist. The '60s gave us many examples, within living memory, of what extremist politics really look like – and even the Black Panthers, Yippies and Weathermen were moderates compared to their counterparts in other countries. And we see nothing like that in American politics today – certainly not in Moveon.org. :rolleyes: 
:rolleyes:
What fucking planet are you living on, furt?
The 800 pound gorilla in the room that hasn’t been mentioned before is the tremendous imbalance in control of the media. Right now, the Repubs have a well-developed spin machine that can take any molehill and work it up to mountain status on a moment’s notice. Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth – despite the fact that their allegations about Kerry were totally baseless and swiftly and thoroughy debunked, they were able to get those allegations into the mainstream media for months because the conservative network of FOX News, hate radio and talking heads kept bringing them up.
The reason the Dems are keeping quiet right now is that ALL the news for the Pubbies is bad … their poor governance has finally come home to roost. And so long as the Dems don’t say anything much, the Pubbie spin machine has no traction. They just have to keep denying the Administration’s many failures, which keeps the mainstream media focussed on those failures. Should the Dems say ANYTHING the least bit controversial, the Pubbie spin machine will be on it like a pack of starving wolves, trying to get the media focussed on THAT instead of the many, many failures of the current Administration.
When and if theings ever go right again for the Bushies (their governance has been bad enough that it’s very reasonable to suppose that the rest of the Administration will be an unending litany of failure) THEN it will be time for the Dems to speak up. So long as the mainstream medai keep focussed on Republican disasters, the Dems do well to keep silent, and not feed the Pubbies any new grist for the propaganda mills.
Why would the Pubs “call us populists”? In what American circles nowadays is “populist” considered a bad word?
While I think the Dem silence NOW is a good thing, that’s only because the Dems don’t have anything nice to say. If the Dems had unveiled their twelve-step program for the country (or whatever you want to call it–a less snarky name would be good) several months prior to Katrina, then it would have been a powerful tactic to say, “As we’ve said, once we’re in power, point #10 on our plan is to refocus attention on our internal security. You’ll note that in our proposed spending bill, we’ve renewed funding for vital infrastructres like levees, and we’ve called for bringing the National Guard home. Here’s how our plan would have resulted in saving lives. We urge the president to adopt our plan immediately, because it’s better late than never.”
Daniel
How exactly is Marxism applicable, or thought to be applicable, to literary studies? And how, for that matter, is “classicism” applicable to literary studies?
:rolleyes: That might be true in the United States – and practically nowhere else on Earth.
But what makes you think the Dems are not a party of big money?
What exactly was “extreme” about JFK?
What exactly is the logic behind attacking when the enemy is strongest?
I think in the new conservative lexicon, “extreme” means “not Republican.”