Democrats

10 Comments Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Republicans

suggestions for republicans

iraq is not a black-and-white issue. that’s something i think both republicans and democrats should keep in mind in all of their election prep work, whether it’s for the november election this year or the presidential election in ’08. i’ll get to my suggestions for republicans in just a minute, but i want to address this first, because i think that the democrats may be misreading the mood of the american people on iraq.

there is a very comprehensive pew research poll here that has mixed results for the bush administration on the views of the american people on the iraq war. while the american people may disagree with bush’s handling of the war, a small majority of them generally believe that we should stay until iraq is stabilized. i realize that public opinion is split on whether we are winning in iraq or not, but i’m fairly certain that most of us would agree that we should win. that’s why even though bush’s iraq strategy isn’t terribly popular, the democrats’ calls for withdrawal from iraq are even less popular. the american people see those calls for withdrawal as some kind of admission of failure in iraq, and that’s something that most of us don’t want to accept.

i don’t believe that withdrawing troops at this point in the war is the best strategy. others may disagree. that’s fine. let’s have the debate, but let’s have an honest one.

keeping this in mind…i offer the following suggestions to my fellow republicans for november ’06:

  • don’t run from iraq. if you voted for the war, admit it. don’t waffle. point out some of the good things happening there, ie. elections, death of zarqawi, completion of new iraqi government. the thing to remember is that whether we agreed or disagreed with the war, the future of iraq is what we have to be concerned about now. we need to finish what we started there.
  • acknowledge mistakes but don’t dwell on them. the voters may forgive you for those mistakes or they may not. it will depend on (if you’re an incumbent) your overall record.
  • if you are in the senate and you voted against the senate immigration bill proposing amnesty to illegal immigrants, make sure to point this out. illegal immigration has become a huge issue, especially in border states. those who are concerned about this issue want to know that their representatives are taking this seriously and that they will put a higher priority on border security than on temporary worker programs.
  • any support of the house immigration bill should be emphasized as well. border security, not rewarding those who break the law, etc, are phrases that will resonate with people. if we really value the american worker, we should always give them the first opportunity to get any available job here in this country. we must hold employers accountable to only hire workers who are legally able to work in this country, and punish the ones who disobey the law.
  • know your audience. find out the important issues to the voters that you will be representing. be able to articulate why you believe what you believe, whether you have a sympathetic audience or not. focus on areas where you can agree with the view of that audience.
  • values, values, values. this is the main difference between republicans and democrats right now…not that democrats are all heathen hell-bound folks, because they are not. it’s fair to say, however, that on issues of concern to social conservatives and christians, they can find more common ground with us than with the democrats. i don’t think i have to spell out what those common values are.
  • always be positive about america, the state you want to represent, and the future of both. sell yourself as the best choice, not as the alternative to a bad choice. constant negativity is a turn-off to voters. we want to be positive and optimistic about where our country is going. give us that opportunity.

that’s my advice. if karl rove gives you different advice, then please listen to him instead. 🙂

10 Comments Posted on Democrats, Editorials

strategery

what is more important to the democrats – winning elections or fighting over iraq? some might suggest that the war in iraq is so polarizing that the democrats can take back control of the white house, and possibly even pick up some congressional seats in the fall, BY fighting with the bush administration over iraq policy. i’m not so sure about that. being against the war in iraq is a legitimate point of view. i’m not saying it isn’t. it’s just that making this the main qualification for a candidate might not be the best strategy for the democrats.

lucky for the democrats, i’m here to help them with their strategy. no mortal human being can completely fix the fissure currently on display with the democratic party between the centrists and those who are, um…not so centrist. total unity between those two groups may not be possible. however, there are ways for the democrats to appeal to more voters, as long they start thinking more in big picture terms.

larry sabato asks several questions that democrats will have to answer when deciding the best strategy for picking a presidential candidate who could win the ’08 election. ***while it’s true that his questions have the most relevance to ’08 strategy, i believe that some of these questions also come into play when discussing potential congressional candidates. In some current mid-term races, the question of whether to throw their support behind someone like ned lamont in connecticut who opposes the iraq war, or joe lieberman who supports it and several other policies of the bush administration, is something currently being debated in democratic circles.  it’s all part of the big picture as far as i’m concerned. ***

now to the questions.

“will they…

  • … help themselves by nominating the candidate most likely to win, or will they insist on ideological purity?
  • ….choose a person with broad popular appeal, or pick a controversial standard-bearer?
  • …broaden their base, or merely attempt to produce the highest turnout possible among liberal constituency groups, a tactic that failed in 2004?
  • …find a nominee fully able to compete with a Republican on national security, or simply hope to skate by on this greatest of all issue-clusters in the current age of terrorism?

for the first question, the answer to it should be pretty obvious. you go for the candidate who can get you the most votes, and the candidate who is the most electable.

controversial standard-bearers are only useful if they force electable candidates to re-think their positions on issues, or change them to appeal to those sympathetic to that person’s views. people who admit to unpopular views aren’t usually electable. maybe there are exceptions to this, but the conventional wisdom is usually true in this area.

how many votes can you get from the aforementioned liberal constituency groups? even if a majority of the people in those groups vote, my guess is that the democrats might be a few votes short. aren’t the democrats supposed to be famous for their inclusion, “big tent” philosophy, etc? so why not prove this inclusion by letting those who are in the minority on issues like abortion and the war in iraq have equal access to their party? broaden the base.

national security is important post 9/11. the voters want to know that their candidate’s party has a credible plan for national security. this plan should be more specific than “we won’t do what bush is doing”. it should include not only an alternative to iraq policy, but also a strategy to deal with securing our country’s borders. border security and tougher enforcement of current immigration law is essential as part of an overall national security plan.

i think the voters are smart enough to know when a candidate is pretending to be something he or she is not. so i think the democrats should say what they believe, and be willing to make the argument for why they believe it. if your position is defensible, defend it. it’s not about how awful, terrible, and horrible you think bush is. it’s about why voters should elect you. sell yourself.

my last bit of advice may be more cosmetic than any of the others, but this is something i don’t usually see from the modern democratic party. the spice girls called it “positivity”. be positive. america’s a great country. we have problems. there are inequalities in our society. nothing is ever perfect. we still should have hope and optimism that, in spite of everything going on in the world today, america’s best days are still ahead. i believe that. i would love to hear something like this from the democrats. that’s how reagan inspired the people of this country.

so those are my suggestions for the democrats. i just hope this is one of the days the dnc doesn’t come to visit this blog. i also hope, as always, that they will not take my suggestions seriously.

4 Comments Posted on Conservatives, Democracy, Democrats, Republicans

you can’t always get what you want

Conservatives should be wary of the idea that when they talk about, say, tax cuts and limited government – about things other than abortion, gay marriage, religion in the public square and similar issues – they are engaging in values-free discourse. And by ratifying the social conservatives’ monopoly of the label “values voters,” the media are furthering the fiction that these voters are somehow more morally awake than others.

george will

social conservatives have values that are shared by many people in this country, but they have to realize two things. first is that they will never get everything they want. legislating moral behavior to the degree that some of them are suggesting is impossible. the second thing they have to keep in mind is that they won’t do any better than they are doing now by voting for the democrats.

there’s nothing wrong with having absolute black and white positions on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. there’s also nothing wrong with saying that a political party would lose support from your group if it does not do what you tell it to do. the flaw in this strategy for groups like this is that they don’t consider the big picture very often. george w. bush may not be their perfect politician, and likewise the republicans may not be 100% hard-core as far as pressing their core issues.

however, there are not many alternatives for groups who see supporting life and opposing gay marriage as their core issues. where would these social conservatives go if they took back their support of the republican party? not to the current group of democrats, that’s for sure. we are talking about the party whose leadership is strongly in support of abortion, of gay marriage, and which also does not have a very comfortable relationship with the Christian community. as well as being out of step with the centrists in his own party, dnc chairman howard dean can’t seem to find much common ground with the rest of the country.

he opposes missouri’s voter id law, which requires voters to have a valid photo ID in order to vote. if he was really concerned about election fraud and people being disenfranchised, you would think that the democratic party would want to support this and other similar laws. this is another one of the many unpopular positions dr. dean has taken while representing the democratic party. even on the war in iraq, the american public doesn’t seem to agree that immediate withdrawal (whatever the current definition of that seems to be) is the right answer to what should be done about iraq.

dean’s attempts to reach out to the 700 club crowd have also fallen flat. that is because he lies about where the democrats are on social issues, and even goes as far as to claim that the democratic platform of 2004 supported the idea of “one man one woman” for marriage. it did not. dear howard, please stop before you hurt yourself. (I guess it’s too late for that warning, isn’t it?) if the centrists don’t like where howard dean is taking their party, then they had better take some serious action now, or they
are headed for another election defeat in ’06.

there is always the option for social conservatives, and for small-government conservatives, to take their ball and go homeÂ…that is to stay home on election day, possibly handing the congress over to the democrats. it is a tempting idea, but not because the republican majority hasn’t taken a hard enough line on abortion or the federal marriage amendment. the appeal lies with other areas where republicans haven’t lived up to the expectations we had for them when we elected them. one is spending. as i pointed out previously, these republicans aren’t fond of small government, and have demonstrated that quite well. even those who wish to make the attempt to reduce spending, such as mike pence, are brutally shot down.

the question is then: how do we reform the system? i don’t know if there is a way to significantly impact the process in washington and change the way it currently works. we hold politicians to a higher standard because they represent us, and we should. because i’m a conservative, i believe in personal accountability for everyone, and especially for those in DC representing me. unfortunately, a self-policing system will never provide the level of accountability that is necessary to keep our politicians on the straight and narrow.

that’s why it has become more important to stay engaged and to pay attention to what your representatives and senators are doing, and not just 6 months before an election. even if your congressman or senator is not in your political party, you still have a voice. you still can write letters, make phone calls, and bang on the door (figuratively, of course) until you get an answer.

accountability is not just about elections. it is also about citizens taking an active role and letting their representatives know where they stand on the issues currently being debated. look at what happened with the dubai ports deal. everybody got motivated to call DC and say “hey what the heck are you guys doing up there?” we need to do more of that. i think we are starting to pay more attention to issues, now that illegal immigration is front-and-center. that’s a good thing. i would like to believe that our voices are having some impact in this debate. we shall see what happens with this current immigration legislation in the house and in the senate.

the last word belongs to john hawkins:

Here’s my advice: set your emotions aside and think long and hard about what a Democratically controlled Congress would really mean. Is the satisfaction of, “teaching the Republicans a lesson,” worth the price? Think back to the Clinton years: conservatives certainly stuck it to Old “Read My Lips,” but the price turned out to be eight years of, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In my book, that wasn’t such a great trade-off and keep in mind, when you’re talking about congressmen and senators, it could be worse. Incumbent politicians are tougher to get rid of than a cockroach infestation and 40 years from now, do you really want to be sitting around, remembering how you stayed home and helped the next Robert Byrd get into office? Folks, be mad at the GOP if you don’t think they’re doing a good job. Call your senator, call your congressman and give ’em hell if they deserve it. But, when November rolls around, make sure to vote because there’s more on the line than you might think.

Tags: , , ,

Posted on Democrats, Editorials, Republicans

you can’t blame newt for these republicans

read the first part of the contract that started the gingrich revolution:

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

it then goes on to list specific policy initiatives, designed to check spending, restore accountability to congress, and to reduce big government. that’s what the american people voted for then, and this is what they still want to see. this is what republicans said they stood for in 1994, and they put it in writing in the contract with america(full text here).

i suppose it’s easy to forget something that was written over ten years ago. we can argue about the effectiveness of the policy proposals here, but the contract for america set an agenda and made specific suggestions to address problems. it took the republicans quite some time to figure out what changes to suggest, and how to sell it to the voters. like the british labour party, they needed to re-package themselves and make their agenda marketable to the average person. the contract was part of the marketing strategy, and it worked pretty well.

what does the republican party stand for now? what can they point to as achievements during their time in power? do they even deserve to hold on to their majority? you know that the party is in trouble when the criticism leveled at them by the former leader of the revolution is quoted by democrats. i was flipping past c-span and i saw a virtually empty room with democrats talking to themselves, holding up clever posterboards with gingrich quotes and the ugly deficit numbers, and generally preaching to the very small choir that was assembled there. i’m not sure exactly what the purpose of the meeting was, but it sure was entertaining to watch. in any case, newt was right then, and he is right now. the republicans have fallen off the wagon. maybe it’s time for some tough love for them administered by the voters of this country.

i don’t really want to see the republicans lose congress. i still think they are a better alternative than the democrats. i will do all i can to help defeat the current democrat in my congressional district, because we need a change there. i’m just saying that a good hard slap in the face and defeat in ’06 wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen to the republican party. it might even produce the radical reforms needed to bring the party back to its small-government roots.

i guess i should say something about tom delay here. he did the right thing. the political fallout or non-fallout i will leave for pundits to determine.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Posted on Democrats

this might work

pollster frank luntz suggests a strategy for democrats that makes sense in this report(large PDF). h/t-kos

excerpt here:

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS

1. Don’t feel my pain – give me something to alleviate it. Democrats don’t want to be told what’s wrong with America. They want to be told what you plan to do about it. They’re not looking for the diagnosis – they know what ails them. They want the cure. The candidate most focused on “solutions” will have the advantage.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don’t like him. Tell us why we should like you instead. They hear enough Bush-bashing and engage in it themselves. They assume all the Democratic candidates feel as they do: it’s time for a change. They’re looking for the candidate that articulates the answer to the specific problem Bush created.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it. The time for a conversation about faith and spirituality is in the general election, not the primaries. Democrats don’t want to hear about your church. If they really cared, they’d be Republicans.

4. Don’t tell me what’s wrong with America unless you can tell me what you’re going to do to make it right. A litany of all that has gone wrong in the past five years is telling them what they already know. The candidate who tells them what they plan to do about it will win their support.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don’t already know. It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach. Been there, done that won’t sell in 2008.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn’t much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

7. The 2008 Agenda: education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence. The war in Iraq may grab the headlines and the attention, but Democrats are much more focused on concerns right here at home. `Bring the troops home,’ they complained. Tell us what you’re going to do to improve our quality of life right here in America.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical. Attributes matter, as does style. The 2008 contest is not just about the issues. It’s also about who the candidates are and what they are truly about. Smart is in. Accountability and integrity are necessities. And passion – yes passion – is a prerequisite.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope. Beating up on Republicans will generate applause, but it doesn’t generate votes. The candidates focused on the future will have a significant advantage. The candidate that generates the most hope in a better future will win the nomination.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee. Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.

makes sense to me.

Technorati Tags: ,

4 Comments Posted on Democrats

these democrats can win

In 2004, the hand wringing was constant and it was difficult to watch. It was difficult to watch because the reason we lost became painfully clear. Somehow over the last 30 years, Democrats stopped being authentic.

We stopped being the party of the people, and only for the people. The public came to view us as “the Government Party” that was more interested in being part of government than in connecting with regular people. We stopped sharing our personal beliefs and only shared our policy proposals. We stopped giving people a reason to trust us and voters began to doubt our convictions. And we stopped believing that giving voters a sense of who we are and where we come from was a critical part of communicating. It never stopped being important to voters, but somehow it stopped being important to Democrats.

If Democrats are not in sync with what is important to voters, then how can we be authentic–how can we regain their trust?

–al quinlan (real clear politics)

that’s exactly the point. issues matter. authenticity also matters in elections. of course voters want candidates who agree with them on issues that are important to them, like abortion, religion, and guns…but i believe that we also want them to be people who are geniune in their words and their actions. we want people that we can respect and people that we can trust. credibility is more easily achievable when a candidate takes consistent positions and doesn’t just pander to the groups that are politically popular. (this applies to both republicans and democrats.)

at times i do enjoy watching the democrats struggle. i’m partisan like that. it’s just that i don’t think that the average democrat is satisfied with the way the democratic leadership is representing their views. i also think it’s sad that the democratic leadership doesn’t seem to be interested in listening to that average democrat, and instead takes its marching orders from daily kos and arianna huffington. it shouldn’t be that way. if we really want to have a debate on ideas, and not just on personality/charisma, then we must have two strong alternatives. that’s not where we are with the republicans and democrats, who are currently looking to polls for their principles.

anyway…enough of me. read a better argument. read more of quinlan’s post here.

Technorati Tags:

5 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

principles DO matter

“The Clinton era did not produce a stronger Democratic Party. To the contrary, it’s legacy is the philosophy that principles don’t matter, that what counts is reading the mood of the electorate and being nimble enough to adjust to changing voter preferences. This counsel probably cost Al Gore the Presidency. The former Vice-President, who’s a person of deep personal morality, got tragically bad advice. He ran a campaign based upon issues, rather than on principles. Surrounded by Clintonistas, Gore attempted to win with a Clinton-style campaign, forgetting that he lacked Bill’s charisma. Gore hid his true character from the electorate. Forgot that he is a values-based Democrat.”

bob burnett– “busting the clinton ghost“

in today’s political arena, i don’t think that the politics of expediency are exclusive to the democrats, although they seem to have perfected it. the truth is that it doesn’t work for anybody except for bill clinton. i can understand how the democrats (at least their current leadership anyway) are tempted by the idea that they should say and do anything they have to do to regain power in washington. it’s a flawed idea. principles do matter. the average voter wants a representative who will stand up and fight for their values. we want someone who navigates by beliefs, not by polls. we want someone who says what he or she will do, and keeps those promises to us. am i promoting some kind of idealistic alternative universe? i don’t think so…as long as we, the unelected, stay engaged in the process of accountability that is required of citizens taking part in this great democracy.

so, how are the democrats doing with reading the mood of the electorate? the polls suggest that many americans have an unfavorable view of president bush and specifically of the UAE ports deal, which is currently in danger of being ditched completely. everyone wants to be re-elected, and they are scared to death of any fallout from bush’s unpopularity. bush-bashing is politically popular, and as long as that continues to be true, they will continue to engage in it. the republicans are also complicit in helping the democrats torpedo the president. it doesn’t matter to any of them that the president may be absolutely right on some of the things he’s doing…all that matters is saving their own skin. this is deplorable.

the question is: what do the democrats believe in? what principles can they stand on? although their far-left fans may cheer as random drive-by attacks on the president are leveled at him, that’s no way to win elections. despite what the average moonbat may have you believe, bush won in 2004. he beat john kerry despite his unpopularity and despite the american people’s uncertainty about iraq. if the democrats think they can win back congress with a message of “i’m not bush”, they are sadly mistaken.

bill press is a smart guy, even though i disagree with him politically. that’s why i’m surprised that this is his advice to the democrats. just run as the anti-bush…and that will be enough to win, says press. press writes about some issues where he feels that the democrats can capitalize on perceived bush weaknesses, and then suggests that all they need to do is run against bush, instead of using some of those issues to promote better ideas. i disagree with bob burnett when he says that gore lost because he focused on issues, rather than principles. i think that issues and principles are not that far divorced from each other. what you believe determines what you will do and what you will say.

it’s not enough for republicans to say, “america is less screwed up with us in charge”. it’s not enough for democrats to invoke the scary spectre of how much they believe george w. bush has ruined this great country. it’s judgment time for both houses. the first party to have a platform other than saying “we are better than the other guys are” will be the party that wins in ’06 and ’08.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

11 Comments Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Liberals, Moonbats, Republicans

the politicians: good, bad, and ugly

this is where we are now. republicans have become fat and lazy with incumbency. democrats have pandered to the unhinged. so…whose party has more hope of a quick recovery? my vote goes to the republicans. it’s easier to recover from what ails the republicans than it is for the democrats to extricate themselves from their love affair with their passionate left-wing contingent.both sides are out of touch with what their average members believe.

the democrats are not accurately represented by codepink, daily kos and DU, and the average moonbat hippie socialist. i’m guessing that the average democrat probably isn’t happy about the fact that howard dean is in charge and speaking for their party. none of the democrats who want to be president in ’08 have shown the ability to lead their party back to becoming a legitimate alternative to the republicans. take this to the bank: they will never achieve that goal until they get rid of howard dean and appeal to their non-moonbat base.

now to the republicans. they are a deeply flawed party at this point. they have become comfortable with the status quo and they need a wake-up call. hopefully this can take place without a massive voter revolt against them in the ’06 primaries. these are some of the issues the republicans need to address and make central to their campaigns. spending must be cut as well as taxes. border security must be dealt with. if they took any money from abramoff, they must take responsibility for that decision, and return any unethical donations. being accountable to the voters who elected them is something both parties need to work on if they want to keep their jobs.

i think it’s more likely that the republicans can get past their current struggles as long as they don’t take the democrats for granted. as for the democrats, i wish them a whole lot of luck. they have to replace howard dean, gag hillary, reid and kennedy, and stop pandering to kos and his ideological twins. i almost forgot something important: get a plan that doesn’t just consist of opposing the president’s policies that would also present a positive view of america. that’s a tall order.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats

hillary: the dems’ best hope for ’08?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a longtime Hillary Clinton fan. As in a back-when-she-was-still-wearing-headbands fan. I have found her warm and utterly charming in person; more than that, she understands the challenges facing Democrats in a way that few others in the party do, and her ability to absorb policy nuances rivals her husband’s. This country is long past due for a female president, and I would love to see Hillary Clinton in that trailblazing role (and not just because it would make Ann Coulter break out in giant hives). But—at the risk of getting myself permanently blackballed by her loyal and protective staff—while Clinton can win nearly any debate that is about issues, she cannot avoid becoming the issue in a national campaign. And when that happens, she will very likely lose.

–amy sullivan in the washington monthly

i am not a hillary fan. never have been. i don’t share ms. sullivan’s positive assessment of the junior senator from new york. i also can’t see the evidence that hillary totally understands where her party needs to be on the issues of the day, especially in the area of national security. nor does she appear willing to take on the popular left-wing fringe in her party and provide leadership. all i know is what i’ve seen of hillary, and i have to confess that i’m not too impressed with her politically.

while i would love to see a female president, i just don’t see an ideal candidate for that office right now…at least not a candidate who shares my ideological views. dick morris has floated the idea of a condi rice candidacy. she’s not running. that’s too bad, because it would be an interesting campaign to watch. could she beat hillary? i don’t know. my gut feeling is that she would certainly give hillary a much closer race than the previous attempts made by wanna-be challengers rick lazio and jeannine pirro. (hillary would have lost to guiliani…guaranteed.)

the democrats have a problem here. at present, they have no coherent leadership. there are several democrats attempting to fill this void: dean, kerry, gore, and senator clinton. they are well-known on the national stage, and vary a great deal in their level of credibility with the american people. whether this should be the case or not, hillary’s political ambitions can’t be divorced from her overall negative image. amy sullivan may be correct when she says that hillary can win issue-oriented debates, but at the end of the day, hillary can’t run from her past history. even her detractors recognize that she is a formidable opponent, but she sometimes makes bad political calculations and says silly things (like the plantation remark) which damage her credibility as a leader.

with all that said…i still think hillary’s the best candidate the democrats have right now. maybe in the next 2-3 years they will find a stronger representative for the democratic party. but in order to do that, they will have to first find a coherent message for that candidate and for their party. good luck making all those groups within the party happy. it will be a difficult task.

BTW…she’s no centrist.

related:

Is Hillary a centrist? Let’s look at her votes–newsday
Hillary in 2008?–amy sullivan
Many faces of Hillary — none a winner–jonah goldberg

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush

the democrats’ lost mojo

President Bush was in trouble. Nothing was going right, and the war in Iraq was rapidly losing support. Democrats smelled victory but kept bungling the chance. Their nominee was so unappealing that Bush and the GOP scored a giant victory.

That’s a short history of the 2004 elections, when Bush won a second term and the GOP gained seats, and kept control, of both houses of Congress.

Fast forward and 2006 is shaping up like deja vu all over again.

Bush hasn’t seen 50% approval in the polls for months, Iraq is stuck in bloody neutral and congressional Republicans are under fire for ties to a corrupt lobbyist. With midterm elections in the fall, Dems should be able to take one or both houses and exert much more influence over the last two years of Bush’s term.

But Democrats are still getting in their own way, and could blow their chances again. The most prominent party leaders, including Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, have become so extreme that their attacks make Bush look good by comparison.

–michael goodwin, “dems are blowin’ it” (ny daily news)

quick. get austin powers on the phone. mojo of a different sort is missing from the party in opposition. they can’t seem to get anything positive out of their attacks on president bush. they can’t seem to find a message that works for them and also is something that the average american can identify with/relate to. in addition, they can’t seem to figure out who is really in charge of their party. is it howard dean? is it left-wing blogs? hillary? john kerry? nancy pelosi? harry reid? the answer is that NOBODY knows. it’s interesting that even the democrats don’t see hillary as a leader or even representative of their party’s views right now. i do think that if the democrats found a unified message and if (this is a big if) it consisted of more than just opposing what bush does, then they would have a much better chance of success in november. i just don’t see this happening.

where are the men and women of vision for the democratic party? who will provide an optimistic view of this country’s possibilities and promise in addition to concrete solutions to problems we are facing as a nation? who will step up and push the democrats closer to the views of most of the rest of the country? i haven’t seen any of them who are willing to abandon the kook vote. none of the potential democratic candidates for president have shown leadership, and they also don’t have a message that’s easy to sell.

but the republicans can’t rely on democratic failure/implosion. we still need to tear down some walls in our own house, and remember what made us successful in the beginning. it’s not enough to be against bush. the opposition needs to present a vision for change, and right now they just don’t seem to have one.

jonah goldberg in the la times:

“Some Democrats are furious that their party doesn’t have its own ideas. Others say they do have ideas, they’re just keeping them secret for now. That sounds a lot like the high school geek who insists that his girlfriend is really hot but lives in an undisclosed location in Canada. “

exactly.

interesting weekend linkage (related and otherwise):