Remember how before the New Deal, FDR ousted all racist Democrats?

[jpgray]

Oh wait, that never happened. Sorry. This is just to say that certain undesirables, congresspeople most of DU rightly doesn't value, still have uses. You oust incumbent Democratic congresspeople and fail to elect replacements, suddenly any SCOTUS justice Bush wants is in, simple as that. No chance for filibuster. If the GOP uses the "nuclear option", things become different, but for right now the size of our minority is very important to maintain for a lot of people. Say, anyone who wants laws interpreted fairly for the next generation or so.

[Deep13]

1. True,

Numbers matter more than personalities or issues in any legislative body.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Fie! Fie!! Pragmatism!!

Heaven forbid someone put forth a practical idea!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. The lesson being, don't dump the DINOs unless we have

candidates who are guaranteed to win ready to step into their spots. That doesn't mean, however, that we can't hold their feet to the fire whenever they start parroting * speak.

[jpgray]

5. Absolutely we should hold their feet to the fire

I'm just saying we should stop at the point of kicking them out when the replacement will be a wholly conservative stooge. Though we may be stuck with ten or twelve half-conservative DINOs, that means we should be able to reliably stop the GOP nastiness half the time. This is sort of the "would you like a punch in the face or a stab to the gut," I'd prefer neither, but given the choice....

[GOPBasher]

4. I agree. n/t

[Padraig18]

6. How dare you be practical????

I am OUTRAGED at your refusal to put our party at 25-30 PURE senators, and permanent minority status!

:P

[Selatius]

7. We can burn senators' feet in the fire without booting them

[jpgray]

8. Yep. I'm not one to call for an end to criticism

But calls for purges seem premature to me, so long as we can do more with more. If the GOP change that, then we'll see where we are.

[Padraig18]

10. I'm all in favor of that.

Threaten them with primary opposition, etc.--- fine.

:)

[bvar22]

9. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over....

...and expecting different results.

How does your campaign strategy differ from that of the last 8 years?

If nothing changes; nothing changes.

I will no longer vote for or send money to ANYONE that is working against the interests of Labor, the working class, the Middle Class, or the poor!

So be it!

[Padraig18]

11. Bill Frist thanks you. n/t

[bvar22]

13. No

Everyday, Bill Frist is giving thanks those whose strategy (yours) resulted in the decline Democratic Party.

You argue for the status quo,
I demand accountability and change.

[Padraig18]

17. You demand defeat.

The country swings between conservative and liberal poles, historically, and I'm quite sure that when it swung toward liberalism last time there were lots of Chicken Little Republicans shouting that the only reason they were losing seats was because they weren't nominating candidates who were conservative enough.

:eyes:

[bvar22]

20. I demand defeat???

Point to the wonderful success that supporting the status quo has achieved. In spite of the rationalizations, this strategy has been a dismal failure.
I realize that it is frightening to demand changes. The status quo IS comfortable and doesn't require any out of the box thinking or taking any risks, but The Democratic Party IS HEADING OVER A CLIFF!!! Back up and take a look.


In case you were asleep, the Democratic Party is on the verge of irrelevance. This is the DIRECT RESULTS of 20 years of voting for represenatives that vote AGAINST those they are pledged to support, and instead, vote for the agenda of their Corporate Masters.


Please explain to me again how voting for and supporting someone who works AGAINST Labor, the Working Class, The Middle Class, and the poor is good for me?

[Padraig18]

22. I have an excellent historical perspective.

I'm not in wing of the party running around screaming 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'. A review of political history in this country clearly shows that the pendulum swing conservative, then moderate, then liberal, then moderate, then conservative, etc., etc. . I'm quite sure that during the last liberal ascendancy, the conservatives were just SURE that they would become the majority again, if only the ran candidates who were even MORE conservative...

[salin]

30. I dunno...

in 1964 they went very conservative... and lost.

in 1980 they returned to very conservative... and won. Context changes, as do the personality of who is running and how that currently resonates with the public.

Obama isn't terribly centrist, but won big. However context (two marriage scandals move to opponents out of the way) also played a role, as did the personality of Obama himself. There are always many, many variables at play. When we try to recreate a former "success" based on a past trend, we often don't take into account new variables that have come into play and thus are not strategically prepared to optomize and nuetralize those variables.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

54. If I might inject a bit of pragmatism here...

We're not even in a huge minority. We lost by 3%. We're not THAT many seats down in either the House or the Senate. We're not far off.

[Deep13]

21. Long swing to the right.

We have been swinging to the right for 30 years, not eight. There is no reason to suppose it will ever swing back, especially with the Rs dominating not only government, but economics, religion, media and popular culture. I am afraid that we need to accept that the people are a lot more conservative than we are and need to adjust our party to represent them instead of tring to convince them that we are right and they are wrong.

[iconoclastNYC]

36. 40% of people don't vote.

There is your margin of Victory. Give them a reason to vote.

[bvar22]

23. Actually, that is EXACTLY what happened!

You said:

"I'm quite sure that when it swung toward liberalism last time there were lots of Chicken Little Republicans shouting that the only reason they were losing seats was because they weren't nominating candidates who were conservative enough."

That is EXACTLY what happened:
Remember the republican "Contract on America" brought to us by the Grinch?
As much as I hate that guy, he has given us a blueprint for reforming the Democratic Party.
We don't play nice with republicans or with Democrats who vote with the republicans.

We are not looking at a pendulum swing. We are LOOKING at the extermination of the Democratic Party from outside and from within (DLC). I'm not OK with a strategy that says : "Just keep on doing the same old thing."

[Padraig18]

24. After 20 years of the pendulum swinging HIS way, he caught a wave.

The antecedent swing back has not yet occurred in our direction.

[bvar22]

26. Nonsense!

:crazy:

[Padraig18]

27. Truth.

Aceept it, or don't--- doesn't change it.

[DrGonzoLives]

34. How is it nonsense?

n/t

[bvar22]

42. Using "the pendulum theory" to explain away

Using "the pendulum theory" to explain away the HUGE success of the 1994 Republican "Contract with America" is nonsense on several levels.
The Poster of this argument states:
"After 20 years of the pendulum swinging HIS{Newt's} way, he caught a wave.
The antecedent swing back has not yet occurred in our direction.

1) In 1992, after 12 years of UltraConservative presidents, the country elected a Democratic President who ran on a populist platform of HealthCare and caring for the little guy.A Democratic MAJORITY had been achieved (or maintained) in the House and Senate. This CANNOT be a description of a pendulum swinging to the Right. The opposite is true. An observer of the pendulum would have to conclude that the pendulum had reached its apex to the right and was swinging BACK to the Left. Newt's (Atwater's) "Contract on America" stopped the pendulum dead in its tracks and reversed its direction back to the right, a swing from which we have not recovered.
Newt didn't catch a wave, he generated a wave!

2) Someone who uses the Pendulum Theory to discredit the effectiveness of the "Contract on America" would have you believe that we are all victims of the immovable mass and pre-determined swing of the Pendulum....that we are powerless and nothing we can do will affect the Ultimate Political Determining Force!
That is nonsense! No one here (at DU) believes this. If someone really believes this, they wouldn't be wasting their time on a political activism.






The Party out of Power (Democrats) have a terrific advantage in that they can run on reform! The Democratic Party CAN return to power by using the "Contract with America" as a campaign blueprint using Economic Justice as a unifying theme. Unfortunately, its hard to claim Economic Justice as a platform when some of your own fucking people are VOTING for Economic Injustice!! That is why I support strong Party condemnation, and Party funding of Primary challengers for Democrats who vote FOR legislation that supports RICH CORPORATIONS and the VERY WEALTHY at the expense of LABOR, the Working Class, and the poor. Reform WILL REQUIRE UNITY and SPECIFIC REFORMS.



To refresh memories, here is a copy of 1994 Republican Contract on America", a blueprint for Democratic Success in 2006!

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:

* FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
* SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
* THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
* FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
* FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
* SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
* SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
* EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

Did you notice how many of these provisions the Republican Party actually kept? Some of these we could lift verbatim and the Republican Party couldn't complain because they can't afford to have America looking at all these BROKEN promises.


Those who argue for more of the same have their points. I don't believe them, but the proof will be in hindsight. I believe that trends will continue until something changes. If the Democratic Party can show the Nation that as a PARTY, they will fight for the people who actually Work for a Living, we might have a chance in 06. If we do nothing, we will lose more ground.

[iconoclastNYC]

37. Amen!

The DLC was created by Republicans to hedge thier bets. Make the Democratic party into Republicans on business issues and you have victory even in defeat.

We need to run a strong progressive DLC alternative in every primary. This is as much about changing the Democratic party for the long term as it is about winning a seat here or there.

[jpgray]

12. This isn't campaign strategy, this is tactics

I wholly disagree with the direction the party went in 2002. Tailor fucking made for a loss, because we did indeed simply look like half-hearted Republicans to the electorate. But tactically, whatever strategy we have, it's better in my view to keep some undesirables and have the filibuster when we most desperately need it. You can still carry that plan out with a much more aggressive campaign strategy--the "moderate" congressperson can therefore focus more on Bush's failures and where they disagree, for example, than on a hug they shared one day in perfect bipartisan unity.

:silly:

[bvar22]

14. If the cutrrent trend continues...

we WILL lose the ability to filibuster. Indeed, the current failed strategy of running candidates without a clear Democratic Platformor Party accountability has probably already cost us the filibuster if the republicans use the nuclear option.

[liberalitch]

15. ACTUALLY.....

This was done but it was AFTER the new deal
Midterm elections '34 and '38.... FDR campaigned against Anti-new deal dems in their primaries.... then if they won their primaries any how he campaigned for their Repub. opponent.

Most of the Southern Dems who were campaigned against had opposed the eligibility of Blacks for New Deal positions

[jpgray]

16. That's why I was careful to say "before"

FDR took care of those who were inconsistent with his vision of the Democratic Party after assuring its dominance--we are not in a similarly dominant position.

[Padraig18]

18. Bingo!

We don't the club to smack people into line yet.

[adwon]

29. But

FDR failed miserably in his attempted purge and ended up cementing the temporary conservative alliance that began with the Court packing plan.

Purging a national party in a system where Congress is elected on a geographic basis doesn't make sense. The different regions of the country are just too different in political attitudes to expect national conformity to just 'one' party line. In my opinion, the task of the national Democratic leadership (House and Senate) should be to build consensus of the maximum common denominator (the most that the most people can agree on). Considering the state of the party in Congress, perhaps Reid & co. could take a page from LBJ's playbook and work to isolate the Congressional Republicans by appearing reasonable in their relations with W. I don't mean act as a surrogate GOP. Something like 'we'd love to work with the president when he's right, but he's just on the wrong side of this issue.' I think part of the key to 06 and 08 will be making the GOP, especially in Congress, look as unreasonable as possible. How hard can it be to make unreasonable people look like what they are?

If the people of a given state don't like their senators, then let them work for a change. I greatly dislike the idea of outsiders crusading from state to state in an attempt to impose some kind of purity on people they don't elect.

[Just Me]

40. HMPF!!! FDR nowhere near "purged" as the neoCON tyrants are doing.

The neoCONs picked up on FDR's appeal to the people. The difference is that, at least FDR really did support the concept of empowering the American people,...whereas, the neoCONs have so little confidence in Americans' capacity that they manipulate for purposes of concentrating power in their arrogantly disgusting soft fingers.

:puke:

[adwon]

41. Um

FDR's attempted purge was retaliation for opposition to the Court packing plan. While I doubt he intended the plan to fail, it did get the Supreme Court to quit invalidating New Deal legislation. His purge, though, was right to fail. As much as I admire the man, NO president gets the right to handpick members of Congress.

The most radical of the neo-conservatives are latter-day examples of Whittaker Chambers. They're absolutely convinced that America will fall into somebody's sinister hands unless Leninist methods are employed. Seriously, just once, I want to hear Democrats call them out as neo-Leninists.

[Just Me]

44. He went after the military-industrial profitteers screwing Americans.

With respect to the "neo-conservatives",...they are simply power-mongers,..."totalitarians", "fascists", "tyrants".

The self-proclaimed (NOT) "neo-conservatives" are anti-democracy, pro-power (for themselves), absent-soul, cold-hearted abusers,...who profit from position. How dare they manipulate FDR's history, WWII, and even JESUS CHRIST,...in order to justify their destructive bullshit!!!

How dare they betray, in every respect, the proposal that we are all equal in worth.

:puke:

Obviously, they believe themselves of greater worth and value than the rest of us. Otherwise, they wouldn't treat the rest of us like shit: lying to us, deceiving and manipulating us, using us, killing us off like we are nothing but pennies to spend FOR THEM.

:puke:

[adwon]

45. I can't dispute your assessment of neo-cons

but your assessment of FDR's purpose in the failed purge of 38 I can dispute. It was not about war profiteers (the pre-war buildup was over a year away) but about retaliation for opposition to the Court packing plan. FDR was a great president, not a saint. One example of overreaching on his part hardly disqualifies his entire presidency or his accomplishments.

[morgan2]

19. having a consistant message will do more for the democratic party

than just about anything I can think of off the top of my head. Whether or not the party members all believe the same thing, people with national coverage should be as consistant as possible.

[bvar22]

25. I agree.

What DOES the Democratic Party stand for?

[WI_DEM]

28. actually FDR had to work with the southern conservatives

who dominated congress and often tried to rein in Eleanor who was much more outspoken for racial equality.

[bread_and_roses]

31. "We must join with him, Gandalf, we must join with Sauron" **

*approx quote, i don't have the book in front of me

Every time I read these threads that quote comes to mind...how Sauruman tells Gandalf that they might "deplore the evils along the way"* but must accomodate evil for the ultimate good.

As other posters have pointed out, this has been a losing strategy for the Dems. Why do people keep insisting that we have to accept that the country as a whole has moved rightward when, for instance, universal health care has the support of a majority of the population? A majority also support reproductive choice, fair wages, and fair taxes.

So, why are so many Dems willing to concede on individual rights and issues of equality while simultaeneously ignoring the economic interests of their traditional base? It means we lose on all fronts, as far as I can see.

[Deep13]

32. Moderate Ds are not Sauron!

Goddamnit! What ever you think of Ds who do not fully accept the liberal agenda, they are a huge improvement over Rs who openly embrace the religious right and corporate domination. Check the record on the environment, for example, at the www.lcv.org website.

Let's not eat our own and alienate those who basically agree with us! That has been our pattern since 1968 and we have been on a downhill slide since.
:grr: :nuke: :mad: :argh:

[iconoclastNYC]

38. If this was remotely true

We wouldn't have the DLC or DINOs, but yet they make up 20% of our party in Congress.

Interesting.

[Deep13]

43. It is true, check the record.

Last I checked, Bill Clinton, the only D president to win a second term since FDR, was a DLC. By the way, he signed Kyoto and vetoed the bankruptcy 'reform' twice. He tried to institute national health care and was rewarded with a defeat in the Congressional elections.

You make these bald assertions based on the refusal of real-world Ds to get on the ivory tower bandwagon to extinction. Where is your evidence? Is it the very few Ds who come from big banking states and voted for their states' interest on the bankruptcy bill? Is it those who know that we cannot cut and run in Iraq regardless of how bad of an idea it was to get involved in the first place? Frankly, I think a lot of the bitching about Congressional Ds are coming from people who just enjoy complaining. Kind of a fundy-esque self-victimization complex. A lot of people in this party are more concerned with their own positions within it than they are with Democratic victory.

[iconoclastNYC]

47. Clinton won because there was Perot.

First of all you ignored what I said which was there is no record of liberals purging the Democratic party of moderates. There is however the opposite of it, where the DLC is screaming that we need to move away from Michael Moore and MoveOn.

Keep thinking that the DLC was resposible for Clintons victory. You think lots of people voted for Clinton becasue they knew he was a good new democrat and he'd deregulate the telcom industry and sign Nafta? I think not.

Perot deserves more credit for Clinton's victory than the DLC. How many republican votes did he siphon off for from Bush I? More than the margin of victory thats for sure.

A lot of people in this forum want the Democratic party to throw out the consultants who say that the way to victory is offer voters more of the same. The party needs reformed and needs to give people a reason to vote.

And being pro-corporate DLC mush middle republican lite is just more of the same, and will lead to more losses. The Democratic party will start winning again when they stand up for our core principals and offer a true alternative to Republican corporate rule. Until then it's going to be pushed more and more into the miniority. And people like you and the DLC will continue to Democrats who want to stand up for something.

[Deep13]

48. Clinton won bcse people wanted change

I don't see how you can read the mind of Perot voters and conclude that he hurt Bush more than Clinton. Clinton did not win a majority of the public, but he was the biggest vote-getter and did win more than a clear majority in the e.c. People who voted for Perot were unsatisfied with the status quo and may have simply stayed home if he was not involved.

Yup, we cannot be appologists for corporate greed. Absolutely true. I am not really talking about that so much as a few hot-button cultural issues that seem to drive people whose interests lie with the liberals over to the Rs. I am all for standing up for something, but it has to be a fight that we can win. Don't lump me in with the Liebermans! Real banking and media reform, tax equity, real environmental enforcement, national health care, an elimination of the property-tax based educational funding and a sane foreign policy. These are things people want.

[DrGonzoLives]

35. So, then

Not in the left-wing = evil? Do we begin the purges now, or are we waiting? :eyes:

[bread_and_roses]

49. I bow and scrape in abject apology for levity

Read every one of my posts in this forum and you will nowhere find any call for "purging" anyone.

I do disagree that I should support (ie, vote for) any Dem willing to sell out my very life (reproductive rights), for instance, or 80% of the population (bankruptcy bill), for two examples. Everyone must draw these lines as they see fit; having been around a few years, every year I see the same pleas to support the Dems because they are "not as bad" and every year I see greater inequality, greater oppression of people of color, greater erosion of civil liberties.

[bread_and_roses]

52. It is, however, the same principle

I was interupted in my earlier response. I was indeed indulging in a little levity, and also perfectly serious. It is hard for me to see how Dems voting for "Torture" Gonzalez is any different than Rs doing so - or how in any way it is less "evil" for them to do so.

It is not even practical - even forgetting abstract values. The Dems cannot engage the loyalty and interest of their natural constituencies, since they won't speak up for their interests, and they do not gain enough votes on the "other side" to win elections. So, we continue to lose ground on equality and rights without even any payoff - although what the payoff is supposed to be once we've sold out on Jobs, Taxation, Civil Liberties, etc., I can't figure out. Why support these people?

[ulysses]

33. conservative southern Dems didn't run the party

in FDR's day. It's a new game.

[B0S0X87]

50. they did, somewhat

The Solid South was what kept the dems in control of Congress in the new deal and post-new deal eras. Conservatives like James Eastland, Sam Ervin and George Wallace had a lot of power back in the day.

[ulysses]

53. then how did the New Deal even happen? n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

39. You make the assumption there will be no suitable replacement

That in itself is a pretty grand leap: If we fight them in the primary, the victor will lose to a republican.

Yet the clear message from the electorate is they want to hear the Dem's articulate their own message.

Well, my Friends, neocons spent years in the wilderness as well until their party faithful "got it"

Unless we stand for something and clarify that message, it's pointless to hand the ball to someone who is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Oh, and let me know when we have an FDR back in power. The Democrats of that day were so hugely successful due to the Paleocon ravaging of the economy , they has to pass an amendment to the constitution to limit presidents to two terms.

[Mechatanketra]

46. The judges argument is tired.

You realize, all 5 members of the "SCOTUS screw" were either unopposed by the Democrats or approved by a Democratic-majority congress?

The undesirables, by and large, are people with a record of caving to the Republicans. A majority of Democrats means nothing. We need a majority of predictable votes.

If just having a was sufficient, we should have just nominated Bush as the Democratic candidate for President, and be guaranteed] a win! :eyes:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.