Is it Time for Democrats to Start Panicking?

[marmar]

from The American Prospect:



Is it Time for Democrats to Start Panicking?

Unless they can re-establish some of their 2006 momentum, Democrats may find themselves going into to the next election tagged as the party that couldn't stop Bush when given a chance, or as the party that did not try hard enough.

Terence Samuel | October 19, 2007 | web only



They can't stop the war or override the president's veto on S-CHIP. Harry Reid is less popular in his home state of Nevada than the president is in the country, and, if you listen to the pollsters and the pundits, the Democrats are about to choose one of the most divisive political figures in the Republic’s history to be their 2008 presidential nominee.
Which begs the question: When should Democrats begin to panic?

The answer is "not yet." But the truth is that unless they can re-establish some of their 2006 momentum, Democrats may find themselves going into the next election tagged as the party that couldn't stop Bush when given a chance, or as the party that did not try hard enough.

Democrats should be particularly concerned by the storyline the White House is peddling this week, which claims, in effect, that the president has his “mojo” back and that the Congress is ineffective. After outlining a long list of things he thinks the Congress should be working on, the president on Tuesday declared, "It's little time left in the year, and Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by."

And here is Mort Kondracke writing this week in Roll Call:


"From Iraq to S-CHIP to the budget, energy policy, trade, terrorist surveillance, the mortgage crisis and even prescription drug costs and student test scores, top Bush aides say that events are turning in his direction -- and that they are trying to get the word out more effectively."


Essentially, every near-miss the president has had in his confrontation with Hill Democrats is being advanced as evidence that he's still got it. Add to that the news that after 12 solid years in control, the GOP House leadership has unveiled plans to run against the 10-month Democratic "status quo" in Washington.

The list of what Democrats have not been able to do is not as long as some would have you believe, but it includes the one issue that matters: Iraq. The president's strength on the war issue seems undiminished, despite the voters' forceful rebuke last November. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_it_time_for_democrats_to_start_panicking

[progpen]

1. Leave it to our Dem leadership to turn every silver lining into...

a gray cloud. They took a majority position in the House and Senate and turned it into an insurmountable obstacle.

[ananda]

2. There is no real Democratic party any more.

Basically, there is only one party.. the corporate party..

There are a few Dems who have not completely sold
out or bowed to fear.. but that's about it.

[progpen]

4. Agree completely.

[yurbud]

6. there's one and a half corporate parties. half of Dems want to be progressive

they just aren't the half in leadership.

Ironically, if you took the business owned pols out of both parties, I don't think they'd get enough votes to be elected dog catcher. Progressives and the religious right would be neck and neck for number one, and the chamber of commerce party would be statistically insignificant, just as the DLC is now in terms of attracting actual people.

[Windy]

3. and the alternative is what? the republicans? I think not. n/t

[ixion]

7. see, there's a problem with that logic, though

What you're saying is this: "Sure, the Democrats are ineffective, but the only alternative is the Republicans"

I'd be willing to bet that the Federalists and the Whigs thought this at some point too, before their respective parties became extinct.

Personally, I'd like to see more progressives, greens and libertarians in the mix. It would mix things up a bit and make the two dominant parties work harder and listen to their constituents, or go the way of other parties in America who thought the people they worked for were nothing more than "advocates".

[jwirr]

5. Well, I refuse to vote for a pug no matter what. What I am asking is

do we have another choice that will have a chance at winning?

[Emillereid]

8. We have got to stop giving the democratic party and its leadership a free pass

just because they are better that the repukes. The fact of the matter is that we elected with great fanfare and expectations that they would oppose Bush. Instead they have capitulated on most everything. Yes, yes I know that we don't have the votes in the Senate, but we can use our majority in the house more effectively. And the leadership of both houses have enormous power -- they don't have to bring bills (including Iraq funding bills) to a vote. And they certainly have to stop voting for crap like the Kyl-Lieberman resolution.

Yes, on the whole the democratic party may be better than the repukes -- BUT THEY AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH! We need a new Democratic Party.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. I've heard that Bush is spending his last months looking for a way to

make it impossible for future presidents to pull out of Iraq.

[Hawkowl]

10. Too stupid to panic

Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the "leadership" is too effin stupid to panic. They firmly believe they are doing a good job in contrasting the Democrats with shrub. They are truly delusional. The only thing that would get their attention is serious progressive candidates challenging them in the primaries. This should be the progressives strategy. Take down Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid.

[BridgeTheGap]

11. It all starts in the primary and working to get progressive candidates nominated

It's doubtful that MSM will help on this count as, contrary to repub spin about the "liberal media," as they seem to be leaning way to the right.
Effective grassroots organizing is the preferred (and possibly the only) cure. It has been done before and can be done again.
Any 3rd party hoping to come to prominence in the U.S. will have to rely upon the same tactic.