To Dem party leaders: Wanna win? Here's a novel idea!

[LTRS]

Let's count this as my quarterly posting on this subject that no party leader will ever see, shall we?

We lose because our party leaders are wussies of the highest order. The DLC are the biggest wussies of them all. "Moral values" got you down? Let's not get a better message that gives irrefutable proof that it's actually the republican party that is immoral as hell (damn, that is an EASY case to make). No, instead let's embrace the immorality of the republican party as our own, and of course sell out our constituency while we're at it. Hell, they'll vote for us anyway, right?

Too "left" as defined by the immoral republican party? Well, damn, let's just keep moving right then. People LIKE that, right? Hell, let's just BE republicans. That's the ticket.

No, you dem politicians just suck at messaging. And get this through your heads, FINALLY -- when you continually and publicly recalibrate your position every time the wind blows EVEN the party faithful lose faith in you. Ain't NO ONE gonna vote for a party that doesn't seem to know where it stands on any issue without a frigging opinion poll to tell them where to move.

Half the damn people who voted for Bush (and for Reagan, and for Nixon) didn't agree with them on MANY, MANY issues. But people want a leader who will stand firm, EVEN when they don't agree with him. People want leaders who LEAD more than they want leaders who match them on every issue. In fact, I dare say they don't even care that much about "positions" on "issues." They are too lazy to even pay attention to that shit. All they see is a guy who stands up for what HE believes in, and that is good enough.

The fake moral values of the right won this election for them? Oh hell no. What lost this election for us was the constant recalibration of our party and our leaders AND pandering to groups the general public knows you have never had the courage to actually DO anything for either.

Wanna win? Stand by the courage of your convictions. For once! Offer bold proposals even if the polls say only 40% of the public agrees with you. Gain a smidgen of respect. For us. For the party. For yourselves.

Try it. I promise it will work.

[yardwork]

1. Bravo! Bravo!

[tk2kewl]

2. "Try it. I promise it will work."

and if it doesn't at least you can look yourself in the mirror and say you fought the good fight. :kick:

[mattclearing]

3. The party of spineless roadkill no longer.

eom.

[robbedvoter]

4. We already won, but yeah, you are right.

Nothing succeeds like real passion and integrity.

[MemphisTiger]

5. I agree that we need to expose the repubs

for the liars that they are about morals. However, they are winning because of a campaign that was in the making for about 16 years. I was listening to Gingrich on Hannity (don't ask me why) he said that this whole republican revolution was the product of 16 years of planning. They investing in the long term. That's what we need to do. We may feel like we are suffering defeat now, but victory will come in the future. We need to stop living one day at a time and start living in decades at a time.

[LTRS]

9. 16 yrs in the making? Yes....

but I have been bitching this bitch to politicians for at least 10 yrs. Clinton was a good president in many respects, but on balance he may have done us more harm than good by reinforcing the idea among party leaders that being republican lite was the way to go. Unfortunately they have morphed to dropping the "lite" and now seem bent to just being repukes.

That's the problem when you base "success" on recalibration and polls. Pretty soon your convictions and values get lost in favor of the recalibration.

[MemphisTiger]

11. I think the 16 years thing is right. It was

last year I heard his comments on Hannity. But the point is we need to find out why their strategy worked. Why are the American people identifying, or at least voting republican? They say they are independent, but they vote republican in elections. Why is this? We need to find out what is broke and compose a long term plan for the future of our party. You're right, I don't think being republican "lite" is the way to go. However, voters don't like the idea of gay marriage, and see us as pro-gay marriage. I'm not attacking gay marriage, but for this past election, that's what got the people to the polls. These people that my have sat a home on election night. We are like a modern corporation constantly worrying about quarterly earnings rather than long term growth. If we concentrate on long term growth, we may take a hit in the short term, but it will all be worth it when we control the congress and white house.

[LTRS]

12. I am telling you what is "broke"

.... in my not so humble opinion. 44% of those polled in exit polling said they didn't vote for Kerry because he was a "flip flopper." Starting to see what's "broke" yet? I sure am. I have seen it for a decade now.

And isn't it ironic that the meme even dems buy into is that "people see us as pro-gay marriage" when there isn't a single federal dem politician who has ever worked to pass a single piece of civil rights legislation for gays and lesbians? You know what that is called, right? PANDERING.

Wussies lose. Period. Always have, always will. It's politics 101. Doesn't require any soul wretching long term strategy discussions at all.

[MemphisTiger]

13. That is my not so eloquent point

that the majority of the voters saw us as pro-gay and were not okay with that. Eventhough, no dem sponsored legislation. Yet, voters saw us that way. Why is that? It's because we are afraid to take the offense and define the right before they define us. Are we too afraid that our base is too sensitive to stomach these kind of attacks? I think they will be okay as long as we put some elections in the win column. Politics isn't ballet. It's a brutal game. It's also about time our party realized this and come up with something long term to change the direction of our sinking ship.

[tk2kewl]

15. I think Dean is on to what it is

the pukes are fighting a culture war. our society has been debased in many ways, and pukes blame it on liberal-bias (if it feels good do it).

we need to fight the real cause of societal decline. The profit-motive (if it makes money do it). This is truly the root cause of our cultural decline and we need to wake up the masses with a populist message.

[MemphisTiger]

16. Also, they are united in their message

if they the same thing over and over again, people start to believe it. People are stupid in that way. I think your right on the populist direction we need to go. We can't beat them by being like them, but we can beat them by using their tactics, which are dirty but effective.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. And I've been bitching about spineless Democrats since 1980

:grr:

and especially about the Pentagon-pampering, corporate whoring, Contra-loving, union-dissing DLC.

[LTRS]

22. You must be twice as frustrated as I am then

... my condolences. :)

[cruadin]

6. Very well stated. Too many of our party leaders are...

in thrall to the latest focus group, flavor-of-the-day talking points, and going through a contortionist's abuse of the language to triangulate between competing constituencies.
People see that for what it is, and it shakes their confidence in our party leaders. It's that lack of moral clarity that allowed the "flip-flop" label to stick.
Our candidates need to articulate a progressive agenda that supports real working people (not corporate execs.), honors our commitments to our seniors and students and protects our environment for future generations. That philosophical position WILL win at the polls, but people have to trust the candidate who espouses it.

[Ian David]

7. A Third Party that might work

It seems to me (I could be wrong) that something like 90% of the candidates from third parties are "Washington outsiders" from "outside the beltway."

It's been a good, long time since an existing party "split." What was it, The Wigs Party or something?

I wonder if it might be a good idea for the Democrats to split into two parties- Conservative Democrats and Progressive Democrats.

Or Democrats and Theocrats.

And then maybe some of the less nutty members of the Rainbow Green and Libertarian Parties could jump on-board and we'd have a viable third party.

Suggestions?

[demwing]

8. We wouldn't be the third party

We'd be the majority party.

I say why wait for them to split. Lets kick them the hell out.

Who runs this party anyway?

I say we do, we just don't act like we do. Maybe we have forgotten that we run the party. What will it take to remind us...

[lojasmo]

10. Well said. N/T

[AmerDem]

14. I agree with you on everything except....

the real reason we lost this election and all elections since 2000 is election fraud. Every other item in your appreciated rant is dead on spot.

Kudos

[silver10]

17. Good for you!!!

I totally agree!!!!

[wellstone]

18. LTRS

You rule! Our ideas are better than theirs. We must stand up and be proud of who we are. If we do, we will win.

Stand Up! Keep Fighting!

[silver10]

19. I was thinking the exact same thing!

I wrote to my congressman last week, Mark Udall D-Colo, of my concerns regarding Pres. Bush's intentions regarding Social Security (it seems his number one priority is scrapping it - on behalf of his business buddies). And here is the very lame, weak response I received. Is it just me, or does it seem that the good congressman has been brain washed by the right-wing - a sell-out to the Republican agenda? Especially the last paragraph.

The second letter is my response to his lame letter.

Dear (Constituent),

Thank you for letting me know you oppose allowing people to divert part of their Social Security taxes into private investments. I appreciate your taking the time to get in touch.

I think our society could benefit from measures to encourage savings and enable people to accrue assets that would be available for retirement or other important purposes. During the 2000 Presidential election campaign (SIC), both major-party candidates proposed steps toward that goal.

I thought there were strengths and weaknesses to each proposal, but I was - and remain -- concerned about the possible effects on Social Security of allowing diversion of part of its current revenues. My concerns have only been heightened by the current state of the economy and the budgetary policies of the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in Congress. Millions of jobs have been lost in the last two years, and the federal budget surplus has given way to increasing deficits.

Social Security is our most vital and successful program, providing an indispensable source of security for millions of beneficiaries. It does face a challenge because retirement of the "baby boom" generation will greatly increase the number of retirees in comparison with the number of people paying into the system. Congress needs to address this problem, but in the meantime we should avoid making the job harder through more excessive tax cuts and spending of the kind that led the President and the Republican leadership to abandon plans to use Social Security's current surplus only for Social Security.

Thanks again for contacting me. I see my job as being about more than supporting or opposing legislation. I also see it as a chance to try to bridge ideological divides and to bring people together to solve problems, so I welcome your letters and e-mails and always listen closely to what you and other Coloradans have to say about matters facing our state and nation.

(My response below)

Dear Congressman Udall,

Thank you very much for your quick response - it is good to have a representative that listens to his or her constituents, and seems to have the best interests of the majority of the people in mind.

Since I know you are listening, here is another area I am really concerned with. Except for the DNC website, and a few articles in "blue state" newspapers, it is widely NOT known that the Bush administration is considering eliminating federal tax deductions for local and state income taxes - in order to afford to pay for further tax cuts to the rich, under the guise of overhauling the tax code and making taxes "more fair." I believe he is also considering eliminating tax deductions for businesses who provide health care benefits. This will be mostly at the expense of the blue states who have higher local and state income taxes (hence better public education systems, which explains why they voted against Bush) as retribution for voting against him.

Why is this not in CNN or other mass media outlets? Why can't the Democratic voice be heard as loudly and proudly as the self-righteous Republicans? Why are you so afraid to loudly speak out? I hope all Americans, including the "red states," hear about this, along with what Bush is doing or wants to do; destroy our environment, eliminate Social Security, give more tax breaks to the upper class, cut Veteran's benefits, make it harder for lower-income people to obtain an education, and health care for that matter; eliminate worker benefits; start more wars - enact a universal draft to murder more people - so that defense contractors and oil companies can steal more money - these are all such value-driven goals?

I am not being accusatory toward you, but as a whole, the Democratic Party message seems very weak, not at all as purpose-driven and strong as the Republicans, as if you are afraid to offend anyone. They are not afraid of offending anyone - they are out-and-out, unabashed liars, who have found one concentrated shtick, and are running with it, while they take care of their own self-serving priorities that only help the very few. And Dems have SO much more ammunition to use on their side. It's as if the Dem politicians are enjoying the fruits of the Bush administration, and as much as they like blaming the Republicans, they aren't that anxious to exert too much effort to fight the Bush administration's outrageous elitist goals.

Please make a stronger effort to let all those delusional middle-class people who were afraid of higher taxes under Kerry know about Bush's tax plans. And please fight for those who have remained loyal to the Democratic causes, and remember, when you try to please EVERYBODY, you please NOBODY.

Sincerely,

(Constituent)

...Needless to say, after about a week, I still have not received a response to this.

[LTRS]

20. Perfect example of calibration

... it's like the strategy is to, no matter what, never take a stand on anything that might be controversial. How long does this have to go on before they wake the hell up and realize it's a loser of a strategy?! (sigh!)