Dana Milbank bashes Dems for bashing Dems -- is he right?

[Sparkly]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702496.html

I don't know where he's getting his info, but Milbank claims:

Beaten in the last three election cycles, the party has a serious insecurity complex. Convinced they will face another disappointment in November, Democrats are already busy figuring out who among them should be blamed for the inevitable defeat.

He goes on to explain how and why Democrats will blame "Hillary," "Bill," Lieberman, Reid, Kerry, Gore, Dean, Jefferson (of Louisiana), Murtha, Pelosi, and Biden -- and then wryly suggests we won't blame Rove.

(He never mentions unverified voting or financial differences between the parties' candidates.)

What do you think, DUers -- does he have a point, or is he wrong?

[OKNancy]

1. He has a point IMO

All one has to do is read DU. It's pretty obvious to me.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Yes. Republicans have learned to count on it. nt

[acmejack]

3. Dana Milbank is an idiot from the beltway.

To hell with him.

[wyldwolf]

4. well, many on DU will blame the DLC if we don't make any gains

If we make gains, they'll credit Howard Dean.

[William769]

6. No truer words spoken.

But as a person who supports the DLC I will say here and now I also think Howard dean is doing a great job.

[wyldwolf]

8. oh, no doubt

[Capn Sunshine]

33. and this is not how it would be?

Clearly, the DLC recommends a certain approach, which Howard Dean does not agree with.

So, yeah, that's kinda how it will be, if the party rolls with the DLC talking points; unless the DLC does a 180 and gets behind populist efforts to defeat the fascists.

[wyldwolf]

36. of course, which is why I said it

Dems win - must be Dean's fault.
Dems lose - must be DLC's fault.

Shallow thinking, yes. Void of any grand "fascist" conspiracy rhetoric, yes.

[NewJeffCT]

5. We do have the circular firing squad mentality

I'm sorry to say.

As Will Rogers used to say, "I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

[sendero]

15. Why should the rank and file..

... be any more 'organized' than the tragi-comedy that is the Dem senate? They couldn't organize a tug of war well enough to know which side of the rope they are pulling on.

As for blaming, we won't have to blame anyone if we nominate the right standard-bearer. If we nominate another fucking senator, we'll deserve to lose and we will.

[NewJeffCT]

23. I had meant all Democrats

from the top down. Not just the rank & file.

I agree that we should not nominate another Senator, but I will vote for just about anybody the Democratic party puts out there over any Republican.

[Vinca]

7. What's the alternative to being ready to take and give criticism?

Being a Republican - essentially a nonthinking robot who parrots whatever talking points come through in the daily fax. No thanks.

[depakid]

9. Just another thinly veiled right wing enabler

AND he writes for the Post. Two strikes.

His failure to look at the history of the Party over the last six elections- and its recent alienation of its base (which is something the Republicans would NEVER do) just goes to show that he's but another beltway elite who's not worth listening to.

Strike three.

And to the DLC apologists- it's your wing- and YOUR so called "strategy" that's been follow AND is therefore responsible for the last 6 congressional losses. The sooner you get that through your thick Republican lite skulls- the faster the party will be able to move towards some semblance of relevance again.

[MrBenchley]

18. Another "progressive purist" rant....

Of course, it's the anti-DLC contingent that's spent the last week shrieking that Sherrod Brown is "too liberal" to win in Ohio.

"it's your wing- and YOUR so called "strategy" that's been follow AND is therefore responsible for the last 6 congressional losses"
REALLY? EVERY Democratic canddiate who's lost in the past six elections is a DLC member? Weird view of reality.

[depakid]

19. Look at the evidence

I know it's not something you typically do- you'd rather huff and puff. The Dems have run a national "strategy" that tries to mimic the far right, instead of emphasizing what poll after poll shows are popular progressive policies.

Instead of calling out the Republicans- and exposing them for who and what they are (irrational and corrupt) the Dems have generally played along. They're now at the point of irrelvance in national politics- with DINO's crossing party lines to vote with the far right FOR EVERY SINGLE EXTREMIST NOMINEE- no matter how inept or dishonest- and they'ye either voted for (or failed to use their power to stop) EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION no matter how egregious.

You don't regain power (or relevance) by repeatedly legitimizing you opponent's policies. But you do alienate your base- and discourage independent and/or reticent voters to go the polls.

Poly Sci 101. You must have been absent that week.

[MrBenchley]

22. I DO look at the evidence....

"The Dems have run a national "strategy" that tries to mimic the far right"
On what planet is this? Because here the Democrats have been running their own campaign.

"what poll after poll shows are popular progressive policies."
LOL!!!!!!!

"you'd rather huff and puff"
No, I'd rather support actual Democrats.

"hey're now at the point of irrelvance in national politics"
Then don't let me stop you from moving to another party.

"Poly Sci 101. You must have been absent that week."
Here's a tip, kiddo....the world isn't whatever your dormmates are ranting about. Out here in the real world, nobody much gives a shit about whatever your buddies are praraphrasing out of a Noam Chomsky essay.

[depakid]

25. You're even more misinformed than I thought.

Take your pick of progressive issues.

Universal healthcare, environmental polices (pick any one of them) reproductive freedom, right to privacy, increasingly- the war in Iraq, education funding, conservation, consumer protecton, campaign finance reform, renewable energy- the list goes on and on. Every one of these has majority support in dozens of polls- look 'em up. Un fact many have HUGE margins of support- in the 65-70% range- and in a few cases- even more. Too bad the DINO's won't let the Dem's solidify a message on them.

Here's a tip for you- I'm a pragmatist. The so called "strategy that you claim to support (whatever it is) is a proven loser. No one needs to paraphrase anyone to see that. And there's no reason whatsoever to expect that it won't continue to be a loser- and continue to render the Dems irrelvant in national politics.

Seems to me, someone needs to get their head out of the sand- and rejoin the reality based community.

[MrBenchley]

26. LOL!

"Here's a tip for you- I'm a pragmatist."
Funniest thing you've said yet.

[depakid]

27. Is that the best you've got

More insults?

There's an old lawyer's saying:

If you can't pound the facts- pound the law- if you can't pound the law- pound the table!

[MrBenchley]

28. Really, what else was needed?

[wyldwolf]

30. Hey, depakid, pound some facts for us, then

Surely there is some evidence somewhere of your contentions. :shrug:

[depakid]

31. Thought I just did- in the posts above

but they seem to fall on deaf ears.

PS: did you see your boy Lieberman undercutting the Dem's today on Katrina- even in the wake of new evidence of Whitehouse ineptness, irresponsibility and disarray.

Nice job.

Keep him and others like him on the Sunday shows every week- and 2006 is in the bag- for the Republicans! Even as they're imploding.

Incredible.

[wyldwolf]

32. I must have missed the links, quotes, facts, and figures...

...and how they relate to 6 congressional losses being the fault of the DLC.

Can you repost them?

[Capn Sunshine]

34. Really?

who in their right mind would call Sherrod Brown "too liberal"?

By the Way, FWIW, explain the DLC funding to me again ?

[wyldwolf]

29. Lacking in anything resembling evidence

His failure to look at the history of the Party over the last six elections- and its recent alienation of its base

Who are the base? Define the base.

And to the DLC apologists- it's your wing- and YOUR so called "strategy" that's been follow AND is therefore responsible for the last 6 congressional losses.

Zero evidence of this.

[nicknameless]

10. No. He's wrong. This is the guy who made fun of Conyer's hearings

regarding the Downing Street Minutes.

Democrats have won numerous races, including the Presidency, but rethug dirty tricks have denied them their rightful offices.

If elections were clean, we'd have some far-superior folks representing us on both the federal and state levels.
As things stand now, we have too many corporate DINOs who are willing to sell us out once they're in office.
Think about the "Bankrupcy Bill", "Medicare Bill", "Patriot Act", "CAFTA" .....

Progressive Dems telling the truth about the betraying, corporate shill Dems is a good thing.
Telling the truth isn't "bashing". Using that term is just a tactic to keep good people silent.

[rodeodance]

11. He has a good point--

[madrchsod]

12. i think it`s called free speech

it`s also the ability to question the each other and our leadership. that`s why i`m proud to be a democrat

[ProSense]

13. What a clever way to shill for Repubs: feign concern for Dems n/t

[Pirate Smile]

14. Has anyone seen the commercials MSNBC has been airing about

Hackett going on Hardball on Monday. "How 'this vet' says the party is using vets as pawns to try to get your vote?

Lovely, isn't it. Who would ever think a political party would try to get people's votes?



:eyes:

[Poppyseedman]

16. It never fails to amaze me the people at DU simply

cannot look at 2000, 2004 election cycle objectively.

Al Gore should have walked away with the election in 2000. It should have been a landslide. I'm not going to debate why it wasn't, as there are a divergent of opinions, but the fact is he won the popular vote and still lost. Florida was a mess and if he had won by 2 or 3 % percentage points in Florida like he should have, it would be a moot point.

In 2004 we simply got our asses kicked. There is no other objective way to look at it. 9/11 came into play. Kerry ran a terrible campaign. It was ours to win and we failed.

Today we are a party that is adrift, but not beyond repair. We have the wrong leadership in place. We are 20 years behind in grass roots organization building, we relied on the unions to got out the vote too heavily. We didn't reach out to middle america. Our message is not clear, our spokespeople aren't articulate, mainstream democrats have abandoned the party for lack of a voice that speaks for them.

Bottom line is we need stronger leadership, I'm sorry, but Pelosi is a boob. Reid hasn't done badly as minority leader but "seems" to have issues. Dean is a strong leader but can't seem to stop from putting his foot into his mouth and becoming the sound bite of the week. These three need to get on one message and stick to it. Stop trotting out the old war horses like Schumer and Kennedy. Put new fresh faces that are articulate in the spot light

Get people excited about our message and vision. Bashing bush will only get you so far. There must be a message after telling mainstream american the person you put in office is a criminal

Flame away. I know I stepped on some scared cows.

[depakid]

20. Reid hasn't done badly?

He has the worst record of any minority leader ever. He's won exactly nothing. Blocked exactly nothing.

An "O" fer. Zilch. Other than some big talk= after wchi he backs down- and looks like a fool in the process. Even Daschle managed to put together a few wins here and there.

Contrast that with Bob Dole in 93-95. With only 41 Republicans in the Senate.

[Poppyseedman]

21. Well, I was trying not to throw every democratic leader

under the bus. But, your are right.

[zanne]

17. We always talk about the "sheeple"

It's the Republican mentality to march in lock-step and not criticize their leaders. We're not Republicans. We're not "sheeple". When we see something wrong, we talk about it out in the open. We debate. We can admit to our mistakes. And yes, we criticize our leaders. We don't stifle free speech. Now, what's wrong with that?

[Totally Committed]

24. For the most part,

Dana Milbank is an idiot. Why listen to anything he says?

I don't see it as "bashing" as much as truth-telling, and I never go after another Democrat unless I have what I think is an extremely good and compelling reason to do so, and I ALWAYS do it from a position of truth-telling, not bashing. And, I NEVER give props anymore to any Republican for any reason. F*CK the whole goddam Republican Party, as far as I'm concerned.

Do I think the Democratic Party can do better? HELL, YES! And I say so.

Do I think EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN WHO STAYS IN THAT PARTY SUCKS? HELL, YES! And I say so.

I think Milbank's mother dropped him on his head too many times when he was a baby.

TC

[seabeyond]

35. yes he is right. and we get to see it on this board. it makes

no sense to me what so ever. and it is what drives me mad mAd MAD i tell you..... about the dems. it is like not a single dem has played team sport and knows how to win in team atmosphere

[OzarkDem]

37. If Beltway Dems presented a more unified front

and worked harder at putting the blame at the feet of the GOP they would attract less criticism.

The fact that they themselves are divided and don't present an effective unified offense naturally invites criticism.

[mzmolly]

38. Yes he's right.

Republicans exploit this flaw time and time again.

[Aaaargh]

39. RESOLVED! No Dem should EVER criticize another Dem about ANYTHING!

And in order to maintain that fine state of unity, NO Democrat should EVER take a stance on an actual ISSUE - cause if they did, there might be ANOTHER Democrat who'd take a DIFFERENT stance!

Right? RIGHT?

The plain and obvious truth is, there are disagreements today among Democrats, as well as among Republicans, about POLICY MATTERS which are very, very, very serious, INCLUDING: the neocon program for a long and extremely costly and dangerous series of Middle Eastern wars; the botch that so-called 'free trade' deals, deep tax cuts for the rich and military spending have made of our economy; and the efforts being made to privatize and gut entitlement programs.

It's clear that there are essentially two sides: traditional Democrats, who support the principles which the modern-day Democratic Party has long stood for, of protecting the interests of the American middle class; vs. supporters of the agenda which seeks to make the Democratic Party into a watered-down version of the Republican Party, that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, concerns itself mainly with the interests of the very rich, and especially of the corporate elite.

The traditional Democratic side has the support of the overwhelming majority of the party's membership; while the Republicanizers have the advantage of big-money support in a system which encourages corruption from big-money, and a fixed place in the part of our political culture which exists outside the realm of democratic electoral processes, and which includes the corporate news media.

The only way to avoid the conflict between these two sides within the Democratic Party would be for one side or the other to either lie down and give up, or bail out of the party.

Everyone here should be able to recognize that the ideological center of the Republicanizing movement in the Democratic Party is the Democratic Leadership Council, and that the calls made by them and by their apologists for a 'BIG TENT' amount to a scenario in which THEY control the stage in that tent, while all the traditional Democrats are in the audience and are supposed to keep their mouths shut and applaud when the sign goes on.

I'm not going to stop criticizing people who are trying to neutralize my party so that the vast majority of Democrats AS WELL AS the vast majority Americans have no real representation in an utterly corrupted and fraudulent system which masquerades as a democracy. But that certainly doesn't mean that I'm not trying to fight the Republicans as well. Ultimately, the Republicans and the Republicanizers are on the same side, so why wouldn't I fight the Republicans too, if I oppose the Republicanizers?

If there's one thing almost everyone in the party can agree with, it's that it IS true that in politics we all have to compromise ourselves at times - especially when we're faced with an electoral choice between a Democratic nominee we don't really wish to support and a Republican who's much worse. But that doesn't mean that we give up in fighting primary battles to support candidates whom we side with on these EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUES, WHEN SO MUCH IS AT STAKE.

Anybody who's followed Dana Milbank's career as a "reporter" and commentator knows that he's a whore for the Republicans and the corporate elite, and that he's a trivializer to boot. All he really offers in this article is RNC spin. Democrats don't criticize ROVE? How the hell can ANYBODY here take that absurd claim seriously?

Those of you who whimper that Democrats should be unified all the time and never criticize each other, yaddidy-yadda: FINE! Then YOU give up what YOU believe in to let the other guys set the agenda. I'm not going to.

Unity is a fine thing -- but unity is for general election races, when the Republican contender, far, far more often than not, is going to be MUCH worse than whomever you've got running as a Democrat.