WAPO: The Party (Dems) Can't Have a Revolution Without the Revolutionaries

[ProSense]

If the Dems had a revolution, would the media cover it the way they covered the Kerry filibuster?

Dems Need A Newt Of Their Own

The Party Can't Have a Revolution Without the Revolutionaries

By Elizabeth Wilner and Chuck Todd
Sunday, February 19, 2006; Page B05

Back in 1992, seven upstart Republican freshmen forced real change in the House of Representatives.

Egged on by a more senior revolutionary, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), these feisty newcomers exploited the House Bank and Post Office scandals unfolding on the watch of a longtime Democratic majority. The GOP lawmakers even posed for a poster, a macho black-and-white group shot. "The Gang of Seven," the caption read. "We closed the House Bank. We're changing Congress. Join the fight."

Today, as a lobbying scandal plays out on the watch of the Republican majority in Congress, the question is: Where is the Democrats' Gang of Seven? Why isn't some spirited group of junior House Democrats capturing the public's imagination and sinking its teeth into the spreading Jack Abramoff mess? And where is the Democratic equivalent of Gingrich?

In Congress, reform often comes from the back bench. Junior members have the least to lose and the shortest -- and thus usually the cleanest -- records. These unlikely agents of change are often change's biggest beneficiaries. Five of the members of the Gang of Seven still serve in Congress. One, John Boehner (Ohio), just became the House majority leader; one, Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), could conceivably become the Senate majority leader (provided he gets reelected); and one, Rep. Jim Nussle, may win election as governor of the swing state of Iowa.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702477.html

[atommom]

1. Too true. The Dems need a major shakeup to be effective

at this point. There seems to be a pervasive fear of making waves, and the brave souls who try aren't getting enough backup from their fellow Democrats.

[atommom]

2. kick!

[ProSense]

3. Flashback to 1994

Flashback to 1994

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Snip...

But now 1994 is becoming a symbol of something rather different for them - hope. If a political earthquake can toss our lot out of office, liberals tell themselves, then another political earthquake can do exactly the same to their lot, the power and perks of office notwithstanding.

There are plenty of good reasons for thinking 2006 could become another 1994. In a remarkably short period, today's Republican establishment has lumbered itself with exactly the same problems as yesterday's Democratic establishment - and then some. The Republican Party may not be quite as lethargic as the Democrats were, but it is undoubtedly more corrupt and probably more schizophrenic about policy - first over-reaching with tax cuts and then retreating into tinkering.

Polls show the Republicans are increasingly toxic to voters (they trail their rivals by a stable eight points in generic congressional battles), but they are just as complacent as the Democrats were in 1994 - convinced they have jobs for life as long as they are not caught in bed with the proverbial dead girl or live boy.

The Democrats are doing their best to exploit this. Ever since Jack Abramoff, a conservative uberlobbyist, pleaded guilty to corruption charges in January, they have hammered away at the "culture of corruption" and tried to show how Washington sleaze hurts ordinary people, forcing them to pay more for energy or spend hours trying to get needlessly complicated drug prescriptions. (Their best line so far: "The poison tree of corruption" is producing the "fruits of bad legislation.") But two big differences separate the Republican class of 1994 and the Democratic class of 2006, differences that could well reduce a regime-changing earthquake into a mild tremor.

more...

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/114034418194550.xml&coll=2

There is absolutely no reason to shy away from impeachment (Iraq lies, etc.), Abramoff, illegal spying, Cheney leak, etc. These are real crimes. Everything else is spin.

[ProSense]

4. The focus needs to be on fighting the Repbublicans. n/t

[cantstandbush]

5. Dems have revolutionaries but they aren't the right sex or the

right color and we have ignored them and written them off for the past 40 years.