Gutless, Spineless and Clueless

[bemildred]

Bush is Falling, But the Democrats are Sinking Faster

By RALPH NADER

You would think that with all the troubles surrounding George W. Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress ­ from the life-costing bungling of Hurricane responses to the deepening quagmire in Iraq to the front page stories of corruption, self-dealing and national security leaks ­ you would think th Democrats would be in the ascendancy.

Not so. The polls are plummeting for George W. Bush on a whole variety of questions, including the key approval rating being at a record low for him. But the Democrats seem to be sinking right along with the besieged Republicans. Stan Greenberg, a leading Democratic Party pollster, declares that "feelings about Democrats are at a 54 month low." Another pollster, John Zogby, reports that the Democrats are floundering because people do not perceive them as having any credible national leaders.

--

On raising the impoverished minimum wage to give working Americans a living wage, the way Senator Ted Kennedy has been calling for, the Democratic Party is clueless.

The Democratic Party will continue sliding into serial haplessness until a new breed of "jolters" comes to take over.

CounterPunch

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. ARGHGHGHGHGGH

This from a man who single-handedly ensured that we did NOT say President Gore?

I know his message is a good one but his ego got in his way last time. He led us down the garden path and what we have now is more his fault than anyone else's in this country.

Sometimes you have to go with what you know is possible and not shoot for impossible stars. If he had gotten behind Gore it would all be different.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. Ralph Nader? The man who accepted GOP contributions?

:wtf:

Ralph Nader made sure Democrats would not be elected. TWICE!!!

I think his articles should be posted in the Free Republic forum, where they belong.

[Gyre]

5. You are struck in the past.

I understand your frustration, but you can take this same gripe back to before the 2000 selection and actually blame Clinton for turning off America with his equivocations/rationalizations which left no Clinton coattails for Gore to ride to victory on.

I'm not a fan of Nader but he makes a valid point in this article. MY point is, that it's a goddamn waste of time and energy to hate somebody (and impliedly attack then and any message they convey) because of what happened 5 years ago. I'd also suggest that your anger at Nader is classic "displaced aggression".

Gyre

[TallahasseeGrannie]

6. I will give you that the argument has merit

but it is especially hard to stomach coming from the man who just might have a part in the problem.

Is he willing to accept some of the blame for the sad state of the shell-shocked dems?

Because if he does, I'm aboard.

[Gyre]

8. How much blame has Clinton accepted?

I'm just saying that this is futile and a self-defeating exercise (ie, it will not reverse what's happened to US).

What Nader has done here is to articulate a big problem that we're facing and that the mainstream dem party seems oblivious to. Is that bad?

One thing that has occurred to me over the last few weeks is that while most of us self-identified dem/greens are unified on the issue of the chimp there are MAJOR divisions among us regarding what really happened to us in 2000 and 2004. We're probably going to have to reach concensus on the cause of those consecutive defeats before we can begin to argue productively on the remedy. And I just don't see that happening. Nader's observation/opinion is only useful if we have a majority in agreement as to WHAT EXACTLY is our Achille's heel? (I have a feeling that it's abortion and gay rights; and we're never going to agree internally that those two positions are killing our side of the political spectrum).

Cheers.

Gyre

[Lindacooks]

16. Sorry, I am NEVER going to 'get over' the stolen election in 2000.

EVER. Ralph Nader is permanently on my shit list. And I'm angry at him because he was BEGGED to not run, and his huge, undeserved ego got in the way.

Telling us to get over what Nader did is classic abusive behavior.

[yurbud]

14. pay attention to the message then.

[rodeodance]

2. i think this is right.

Another pollster, John Zogby, reports that the Democrats are floundering because people do not perceive them as having any credible national leaders.

[Peter Frank]

11. What the Dem Leadership Needs to Do is...

...speak in one clear voice. Get behind the straight talkers like Dean & Biden. What they say maybe considered radical in red areas; but so what? ...The truth is the truth, and moderate Republicans are beginning to see exactly how radically BushCo has perverted and corrupted not only the Conservative movement -- but our democratic process itself!

Now is the time for the Dem leadership to grow a collective backbone and vocal cords. Come 2008 (if not sooner), with the help of Bush's continued bungling and exposed hypocrisy -- this strong voice will likely have had the effect of not only convincing a majority of Americans of the disgraceful truth about our current administration; but offering a electable candidates -- standing on a viable and common sense platform of alternatives and solitions.

[emulatorloo]

3. counterpunch is anti-democratic BS and Nader would make a great freeper

IMHO

[zalinda]

7. Yup, that about describes Nader

Gutless, Spineless and Clueless................

zalinda

[marketsquareguy]

9. Amen!

Thanks for all your help in 2000, Ralph.

[belle]

10. STFU Ralph, you dour little egomaniac has-been.

[yurbud]

12. Ralph's analysis is always far better than his candidacies

[yurbud]

13. If Dems did their job, there wouldn't have been a Nader in 2000

[cyr330]

15. Are you surprised?

Just look at the case of Richard Durbin who truthfully referred to the Republican tactics as "Nazi." He then proceeded to tearfully apologize as soon as the Republican shit hit the fan.

I am SICK to death of pussified Democrats like Durbin, and sadly, most of them have no spines any more than Durbin does. What is it going to take to wake them up? They not only have no spine now, but they had no spine when they were in the majority when Bush* stole the election in 2000. . .

[depakid]

17. Some of you are unbelieveable-

Didn't you ever learn to separate the source from the message? I mean, come on- this is stuff you're supposed to learn in high school.

Name something in this article that's either not true or not a serious problem that's keeping the Democrats from taking political advantage of the Republicans' myriad problems?

Name one nomination or major piece of legislation that the Dems have successfully opposed since Bush took office? The Dems have given (and continue to give) the far right every single thing they ask for.

Doesn't anyone have a problem with this?

Well, I have news- the electorate does- and that's why the party keeps losing year after year.

And if the pattern of coawardice and capitualtion continues, the Dems are set to have their issues coopted yet again- and lose badly in 2006.