Nothing wrong with convincing Republican voters to leave their party

[Tom Rinaldo]

If Barack Obama gets a chance to really create a lasting bloc of "Obama Republicans" - I will gladly cheer him on, assuming they became our Democratic equivalent of "Reagan Democrats". Same thing goes should Hillary create some "Clinton Republicans." Good stuff, hard to knock it.

Those terms are just code for prying voters AWAY from one Party and into another, with a pitch to their perceived self interests. We Democrats have lots of good arguments for why Americans will be better off with more Democrats in America. Let the persuasion begin. When Ronald Reagan recruited "Reagan Democrats", more Republicans like Reagan got elected. That was his goal, to build and expand the Republican Party. And it worked. And we of course can do the same.

However persuading Republican professionals to let a Democratic President unify America is a completely different matter. Now we are talking about the Republicans in Congress. Now we are talking about the Republican "Noise Machine" in the media. Now we confront their real vested interests. There might be a small handful of exceptions, but under virtually no circumstances will politicos in the Republican Party let Democrats seek common ground with the more agreeable planks of a Republican platform.

That would be called "stealing Republican issues"; automatically triggering a scorched earth war with a Party that wins national battles by CREATING polarization with Democrats. Republicans NEED to paint Democrats as ideologically "too extreme", in order to have any real chance of national victories, now or in the future. “Democrats seeming reasonable” is pure poison to national Republicans. Because Republicans do not cater to the interests of a true majority of Americans, they must use fear to win. They would rather co-exist for a period of time with hard core classic liberals, than share the U.S. government with "New Democrats" who are harder for them to paint as out of touch extremists.

Case in point. Republican's regained the House during Bill Clinton's first term using Newt Gingrich’s "Contract with America". Of course they never meant most of it - it was meant to sound good to voters. One clause of that "Contract" that went right out the window was Term Limits, when Republicans became the majority party instead of Democrats. But balancing the budget was always a bigger plank in the "Contract with America". The central plank in fact, because Republicans won elections by calling Democrats tax and spend addicts, stealing voters’ money while forcing America deep into debt.

When Bill Clinton agreed that balancing the budget WAS a worthy goal, and found a way to do so by cutting waste and modestly reversing some of Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, his budget passed WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE in favor. As a result our nation got two things; prosperity and the Kevin Starr inquisition.

Democrats can and should appeal to Republicans and Independents voters, but prepare for fire and brimstone when we do; there will be an all out Republican attempt to destroy any Democrat whose primary appeal is to the center. THAT is how, and when, the "politics of division" began. That is when the grudge match veered toward the jugular and the politics of personal destruction came fully into play.

This Republican Party will not play nice; not in the General Election, not in the next Congress, and not in the media for four more years if they lose the White House in November. Polarization they can live with, even if it temporarily (in their mind) leaves them holding the short end of the stick. Unity though they will fight against, tooth and nail, even if that means impeaching a popular President over a blow job. It will take strong Democratic leadership and a proud Democratic Party, for a real Democratic agenda to prevail in today’s political climate.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Another term for "Obama/Clinton Republicans" is

"Natural-born Democrats who have come to their senses."

[enid602]

2. yuck

Urging all those who 'hate Hillary' to become a 'democrat for a day' is not positive, nor will it swell the ranks of our party. I don't think I'd vote for anybody who advertises on Rush Limbaugh, even in Texas.

[davidinalameda]

4. let's not forget that Clinton/Gore advertised on "Christian" radio to tout the passage of DADT

and DOMA

I don't think that the Obama campaign would advertise on right wing radio but maybe it could serve to counter all the lies that Rush and his buddies will put out as soon as Obama clinches the nomination

[TheDoorbellRang]

7. Actually someone said on a thread last week that they had

heard Obama campaign ads on RW radio in Texas, IIRC. Another poster explained that RW radio was the only kind available in their area, so if there were going to be any Obama radio ads, that's how it had to be. (Sorry I don't have a link, just my memory -- such as it is.)

[davidinalameda]

3. but all republicans are evil

you mean they're not?

:sarcasm:

sorry-great post!

we need to realize that we are all Americans and as Americans, we need to come together and find common ground to pull out of the crap that the Bushies have put us in

one of the reasons I'm supporting Obama is because he does not come into this race with 49% disapproval rating, unlike Hillary

people do not like her, and from the crap she's pulled in the campaign so far, add me to that 49%

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

6. True story

The shrieking dude who declared that anyone who wouldn't vote for Hillary was an ignorant, gay-hating, redneck totally cost her a precinct level delegate at my caucus.

But Seattle, and greater Washington, didn't count anyway. Oh well.

[davidinalameda]

8. did he call them sexist as well?

that seems to be the new rallying cry

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

12. No

But it certainly didn't bring in the fence-sitters. More proof that when those whose political reality are shaped by the internet meet real life, real life is less than kind.

[bellasgrams]

13. That's your opinion, mine is that BO is the one pulling c---- as you

call it. He's just down right dirty. What has he done for blacks and poor in America, or even in his district? How can you people idolize a phony gentleman preacher like him? I saw films of his district on the news. Why hasn't he done something for them. Would he live in those neighborhoods? Is this what America will look like? The reason Hillary has a high disapproval rating is because people like you and the repbs have vilified her so many years, but she has worked hard for working and poor people. She not all talk and cheerleading. She produces.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

5. Whoever the nominee is in 2008 will win

And will get a serious increase to their congressional majority. That majority will erode in 2010, when the Republicans haven't seriously fucked anything up in two years and voters get a chance to forget the Bush years. Even FDR faced voter pushback in midterms.

Reagan, for whatever his ability to beat the Democratic party stupid at the presidential level, never led the party to national dominance. The Obama (or Clinton, I guess) challenge will be making the Republicans feel like they're getting something out of conceding to his plans, because there's been no proof that a Democratic-run Congress will have a fucking clue on how to strong-arm a legislative agenda.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Bill Clinton won some fights with a Republican led Congress

by taking them on over their being obstructionist, and sadly the same can be said about George W. Bush in reverse. There was a time there when Democrats, before we narrowly retook Congress, were reeling from George W. Bush straight arming and bulldozing proposals into law with narrow majorities. I am far from certain that an open cooperative spirit, especially from Democrats toward Republicans, has been as constructive as fighting hard for what we really believe in and starting out standing fairly firm in the process.

The Reagan years mostly came before the emergence of the politics of division. He and Tip O'Neil got along quite well on a personal basis for example and there was more civility between the National Parties even when there were strong differences of opinion. Of course the Democratic Party failed to key in on how at the grassroots level the Right was organizing hard against us then and didn't realize the significance of all the right wing think tanks that sprang up to mold a right wing message for America.

[casus belli]

9. Some Republicans are just as sick of the partisanship.

I don't have any problem working with any Republican who is actually capable of listening and having a two-way conversation.

[JimGinPA]

11. Remember, Many Repubs Have Become Increasingly Anti-War

McC is not the answer for them.

[Thepricebreaker]

14. Really only the Ron Paul supporters..

[JimGinPA]

17. If Roughly 70% Are Against The War - That Has To Include Some Repubs

:hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. For a host of extremely good reasons the Iraq war is not popular

Although many Americans, especially Republicans, can still be convinced that we have to leave Iraq slowly (which is a dangerously elastic concept) so as not to make matters even worse.

But we have already seen that a negative attitude towards a botched Iraq war on the part of some voters now does not necessarily extend to embracing other progressive stances, either domestic or international. Don't get me wrong though, I'll take it, as far as that goes.

[babylonsister]

25. Baloney. There are educated rethugs who don't support Paul

who have learned this war was a mistake from the get-go. They have no where to go but to vote Dem.

This is from 06, so I'm sure the numbers are higher:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/16/iraq.poll/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A poll conducted for CNN over the weekend suggests support among Americans for the war in Iraq is dwindling to an all-time low. Just 34 percent of those polled say they support the war, while 64 percent say they oppose it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. I am concerned about more than whether some of them will vote Dem

once over disgust over the war in Iraq. Some currently dissatisfied Republicans will fall for the McCain argument that he always opposed HOW George W. Bush waged the war in Iraq, and the problem always was HOW the war was bungled - that it would have been a victory for freedom everywhere with competent management - like his.

But it goes well beyond that. If Obama manages to get elected with his current political approach, opposition to the rest of his progressive agenda will remain - and he won't suddenly pull all of our troops out of Iraq so the reality of a continuing war will still remain also. To overcome resistance to progressive policies I am convinced that we need to sharpen the public distinction between what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for, not blur them. I explain why in a post below.

[babylonsister]

28. I think whichever candidate goes up against McCain will be well

versed in the distinctions and will present them compellingly. McCain doesn't seem to me to have much of a way with words (he's horrible!), and his 100-year war mantra doesn't seem like it would bode well when people start listening and he starts getting criticized for it.
Either candidate will have to confront resistance from the other party, but with so many rethug seats up for grabs, I'm trying to be confident that the rethug voice will be squashed to a great extent due to overwhelming losses. I foresee a much bigger majority in the Senate. That would help greatly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. I expect us to win the election with either of our possible candidates also

And we should pick up a number of Senate seats also and that sure as heck will help. But I can forsee the orchestrated attacks that will be coming - on our new President as a person as well as on policy. The Republicans practice the art of dealing death by a thousand cuts while they constantly look for an opening for a swift killing blow.

More than that though I am concerned that we don't miss this opportunity to complete the fundamental political reallignment that we began in 2006. That was an off year election and we ran as the Democratic Party against the Republican Party. We made new Democrats that year. We need new Democrats as voters, not just more seats in the next Congress, to pursue our social agenda for the next decade - the way Republicans built on Reagan in a VERY partisan manner.

[OHdem10]

15. This is the most rational post I have read for a while.

Some of them actually believe it would be better for them to lose.

Their Prediction is Obama will fail. 2010 the country will be
disgusted with Democrats. They will retake Congress and then
in 2012 retake the WH.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Now is when we need to be pressing our advantage

Now is when we need to win over more undecided voters and disgruntled Republicans to an alternative program that embraces core Democratic values. This is our opening. We need to build our Party. If we blur Democratic ideology now into a post partisan pablum we will not win over the people, who we will need to fight on our side, TO our side. We will leave them waiting out there as low hanging fruit for the Republican Party to harvest the next time they gain any traction to attack the Democratic Party and/or a Democratic President - whether that attack is political or personal.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Dupe post. Sorry. Self Delete n/t

[LaStrega]

16. I've never understood that whole ...

"tax and spend liberals" = bad. I'd much rather be a tax and spend liberal than a tax and borrow conservative, 'cause you've gotta pay interest on money you borrow. Duh.

Oh wait, why am I expecting conservatives to use reason?

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Illogic is hard wired into the Republican position

No matter how much taxes get cut, they still campaign against taxes, while they constantly are increasing the military budget which eats up a huge percentage of the federal budget. Just like Democrats, they don't want bridges to collapse, and they get upset when unsafe products arrive from China and are not detected also. It is infantile and knee jerk. They complain about taxes but the reason why we don't have budget surpluses that would allow us to cut taxes without cutting services is because we keep running up so much debt that we have huge interest payments we must make every month to service our national debt - and still Republicans vote to cut Federal income by lowering taxes and take on more Federal debt to pay our bills.

[LaStrega]

20. "... they don't want bridges to collapse ..."

*shiver*

That was a scary day ... I work near where the 35W bridge collapsed. There we were, minding our own business working away, when suddenly the air was *filled* with sirens. In fact, a co-worker was on the bridge when it fell, luckily she made it through the ordeal relatively safely, though she reports she still has nightmares about it. Now the Hastings Bridge is in MAJOR need of replacement, but isn't slated for such until 2018.

( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23176489/ )

Get us the fuck out of Iraq and fix our damned bridges you asshats! :banghead:

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Jeeze, that must have been terrifying to be around

if a few more bridges fail like that, in addition to the obvious terrible losses, many Americans are going to start becoming pretty anxious about simple things like car travel.

[LaStrega]

35. Terrifying is right!

And agreed about Americans becoming anxious ... there are four bridges in the Twin Cities metro area alone that have been declared 'structurally deficient' (a polite name for 'fucked up') ... think how many there must be across the country. Quite the sobering thought. But hey, what's the big deal with the safety of Americans, eh? We've got a war to win dontchaknow. And we're making progress ... blah blah blah.

[krabigirl]

21. What concessions will he make to them, though?

[boston bean]

23. privatizing SS. Not really changing healthcare. Nuclear Energy. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. I fear Obama may be making a key strategic error

I'm thinking about the over arching political strategy for achieving progressive social change.

Obama's campaign machine has been functionally excellent and Obama executes his campaign theme extremely well. On the nuts and bolts level those skills are fully transferable to future campaigns, and it also gives me reason to hope that Obama will be as skilled executing a different type of campaign theme under different prevailing circumstances, though I am still unsure about the latter.

This is a primary campaign and Obama has conducted an excellent campaign for "a primary". Actually Clinton made the mistake of trying to prematurely position her "primary campaign" for the general election - so I credit Obama for getting it right there. I haven't seen him stand up for a prolonged period in an environment where politics is dominated by negative attacks yet, and I hope he can do as well with that, either as our canidate or our President.

But that remaining uncertainty is not the real focus of my OP. Put bluntly I think now is the time to sharpen the lines that distinguish the Democratic Party from the Republican Party - not blur them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't court Republicans, we should. But we should be doing so more aggressively than simply courting their cooperation, we should be courting their conversion to our Party - and not just for one day to vote in a Democratic Primary.

Democrats have the advantage now - we should press it. Republicans have been defecting from their Party in disgust for four years, and when they actually make the move over - and change their actual Party registration, they often become more fervent Democrats than many life long Democrats are. They have the zeal of converts and that is the boost we will need to prevail with a core Democratic agenda for America.

I am starting to fear that Obama is throwing a historic strategic opportunity out the window by being too reassuring to reasonable Republicans that they can remain reasonable Republicans guilt free in his post partisan grand coalition. Loyalties don't lock in until you change the uniform you wear from one team to another's. Democratic registration has been going up, Republican registration has been going down. Now is the time for us to do what Ronald Reagan did in reverse.

Reagan SHARPENED the perceived distinctions between the Republican and Democratic parties and by so doing initiated a period in which the Republican Party came from being to far behind the Democrats in registered members to becoming the larger Party. And the increase in the number of people who identified themselves as Conservative rather than Liberal surged even faster than either the surge in newly registered Republicans or in new Young Republican Clubs on college campuses

[paulk]

31. dupe

[paulk]

32. agreed

What's been fascinating to me about Obama's campaign is that it's been taken from the Dick Morris playbook. It's the campaign that Bill Clinton ran in 1996, and that Morris coined the term "triangulation" for. You take Republican issues and make them your own.

That may work in an election if it gets some of that soft center to vote for you - but it's not going to work in DC, and I hope, like you, that Obama realizes this. The way to beat Republicans when it comes to the nuts and bolts of actually governing is to beat them over the head with the biggest stick you've got. Repeatedly.

[rucky]

27. A-to the-men!

K to the R!

D-O- to the double-G!

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. I am kicking this because when I wrote this I was in the mood for serious discussion

Right now I am in the mood to strangle someone and I figured maybe if someone is into having a real discussion that might change my mood. Worth a try anyway.

[LaStrega]

36. fuck it ... strangle 'em

I kid I kid.

You said "Republicans have been defecting from their Party in disgust for four years, and when they actually make the move over - and change their actual Party registration, they often become more fervent Democrats than many life long Democrats are. They have the zeal of converts and that is the boost we will need to prevail with a core Democratic agenda for America."

True that! I know of several converts (former card-carrying Republicans) and they're just as fervent as you describe.

Concerning your point that Obama may be "... being too reassuring to reasonable Republicans that they can remain reasonable Republicans guilt free in his post partisan grand coalition. Loyalties don't lock in until you change the uniform you wear from one team to another's." Could it be that once he takes office (assuming he does, of course), and the changes begin to happen and the hope turns into belief, those reasonable Republicans may see the light and don the Democratic team uniform? Maybe he's banking on that?

Hope your mood improves ... if not, I recommend using your bare hands, it's just so much more personal that way. ;)

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. LOL. It might well provide short term relief - but it's the long term side effects I worry about

What you suggest is of course possible, but I think more problematic than campaigning now on the merits of the Democratic Party for all Americans in a more overt appeal for conversions. Obama has set the bar for his leadership abilities at bringing Americans together by putting divisive politics in the past. It is a very short conceptional leap to view him as either a good or ineffective leader based on how well Obama meets his own goal. That just empowers the obstructionists. If politics as usual continues - which they have means to make sure it continues - than Obama starts looking like a less effective leader.

Republicans threatened a record number of filibusters in Congress this last session with Democrats in the majority, and they bottled up dozens of important legislative initiatives. Most of the blame did not stick on Republicans for being obstructionists, most stuck to Democrats for being ineffective. The best way to fight that type of obstructionism is to attack the Republican Party frontally for being obstructionists. Bill Clinton did that when he threatened to shut down the U.S. Government rather than cave to Republican obstructionism, and it worked. They caved to him instead and Clinton got a real boost.

But of course Bill Clinton did now shy away from divisive politics to beat the Republicans at their own game when they pulled that crap on him. If Obama did that as a future President he will be accused of being a phony after how he campaigned.

[LaStrega]

38. I'm not disagreeing with you ...

Really and truly I'm not. :toast: Your points are all very valid ones.

Do you think politics as usual would continue -directly- due to filibustering? Of course there's every chance, but a President who's not constantly threatening to veto may bring more Republicans across the aisle on *at least* matters such as healthcare. That messy occupation though? I have serious doubts.

Am I just being head-in-the-clouds too damned hopeful? There's every chance of that, too. Perhaps these last horrendous years under the current regime have had a dreadful (and lasting?) effect on my psyche. But if Obama were to stand up to filibustering Republicans I don't think the American people would accuse him of being a phony, hell, I think resounding applause would be heard across the nation.