Kick da Bums Out Mentality and Democrats

[Stravo]

There is a lot of frustration it seems in the left leaning news organizations like MSNBC (which can provide almost as much comedy as Fox News if you're wathing it in the right mindset) concerning this supposed backlash against Democrats that is being forecast in many pre-election polls. They whine about Democrats not doing enought to highlight that it is Republicans that are blocking anything getting done or they lament the state of the stagnant economy that can be traced back to Bush mismanagement.

What I think is that perhaps the Democrats have earned this phantom backlash (We won't really know until Nov IMO) because leadership is not about blaming the other guy. Leadership is about taking charge and tackling adversity. Does a basketball coach whine that the other team is exploiting his team's weakensses and not taking it easy on them? If he did what would we think about him and his leadership skills? Does a Defense attorney bitch and moan that the prosecution has stacked the deck because they have all this pesky evidence against his client so it's not fair? What would we think of that lawyer? Does a president bemoan the fact that those annoying brown people keep rejecting freedom and blow themselves up at every opportunity and then shrug his shoulders and do nothing? What would we think of that leadership?

So in essence what I am saying is that Democrats should be taken to task for a distinct lack of leadership on all leverls. They are afraid to make hard choices and in that indecision they now look (and probably are) inept. What do you do with inept leadership? You throw it the fuck out.

Does that mean it has to be a Republican that takes their place? That's my sticking point. I hate this democratic leadership because a) there is no leadership and b) they have no idea what to do, but does that mean I have to accept a Republican replacement?

There are these things called primaries where you can vote for another democrat who is running against the incumbent but we all know with machine politics how easy that is.

It's a tough nut to crack if you are someone who just cannot stomach the right in all its incarnations but let's face it the leadership on the other side has been absolutely abysmal. You can whine like MSNBC and complain that Republicans aren't getting enough grief for being obstructionist but again that side steps the core issue in my opinion which is leadership. You find a way or at least try your damndest to overcome obstacles. I don't think anyone here is going to say the Democrats have done either one. But I do welcome discussion on this point.

Do the Democrats deserve what they are supposedly getting come election time?

[Crossroads Inc.]

IN a word, No.
To expand on things a bit. The mentality of "I am upset with the Dems lack of leadership, therefor I shall not vote for them!" Is a self destructive one that does not accomplish anything but getting Republicans into office.

If you truly wish to seek to send a message to party establishment, you do not do it in such a way that strengthens the people you are fighting against. Ironically the Far Right have the right idea here, that being of getting more extreme candidates elected in the primaries.
On the right, no one has said "I am very unhappy with how non crazy these people are! I'll just not vote for them, that will show them!" Instead they are moving heaven and earth to get more extreme people in the primaries, for the hope of them winning the general election.

Your assesment of ""Does that mean it has to be a Republican that takes their place?"" is the key one here. It is very, VERY hard for a sitting Democrat to be worse then a sitting Republican. No matter how limp-wristed, spineless or milquetoast they may be, they are almost always better then a Republican in the seat. If you are unhappy with one, you replace him with a m,ore progressive candidate in the primaries, not withhold your vote leading to a Republican victory.

For me, it is the simple assertion that while Democrats are spineless, they do not actively Fck over America the same way Republicans do (for the most part). That what is best for America is to grit your teeth, vote for EVERY Democrat in the general election, and then, slowly, replace the worst of them next primary season.

[Thanas]

^which will never happen because the Democrats like spineless people, no matter how often they get screwed by them. Lieberman, for example.

That said, yes, the Democrats deserve to lose IMO because on the things I care most about - civil liberties - Obama has done little to nothing. In fact, he is worse than Bush in most regards, especially with him claiming powers that are unprecedented in history. For example, the "I can kill citizens without a court approval" stuff.

Also, a lot of the negative press about the Democrats is due to the fact that the American Public loves winners, and the Democrats do their very best to avoid fights and being in general spineless.

[General Zod]

I can't really say I care for most of the current crop of Democrats, but considering at this point the choice really is between a giant dildo and a shit sandwich. The only practical option is to vote for whoever's going to fuck you over less.

[Mr Bean]

To note. If I let Republicans get elected and win all three houses they will do terrible... terrible things. But they will show some restraint because they want to get elected and getting them elected requires independents and blue dogs.

If I get Democrats elected on the other hand it seems that they will do exactly 1/10th of what they promised to do. Or rather they will try to do 1/10th of what they promised to do. Most importantly any policy that does not affect a company's bottom line stands a good chance of getting passed. Any policy that does oppose a large corporations bottom line will be Republican backed and thus 95% Republican written. Which is funny enough how much a out and out Republican bill written in a senate, house and white house that are all republican controlled ends up. They let the Democrats write 5% to get a few democratic votes. While the Democratics let the Republicans write 95% to get a few Republican votes.

Fundamentally with a few exceptions the Democratic party is a broken fucking party. You speak of leadership Stravo? I say the Democratic party has no leadership. Obama is not a leader because he does not want to fight. For all his faults Bush II was a leader. An incompetent leader who had no clue where he was leading to. But once Bush set his sights on a goal he got it. Only once was he ever rebuffed on the "reform" of social security. I say any possible Republican nomination will be a leader. A take no prisoners damn the torpedo's leader. Most of them will have no clue what the smart thing to do is, but you can be damn sure if any of them set out to do something on the scale of heath care, it would be passed in less than six months if the Senate was 50/50 and they were a man short of the majority in the house.

In that view I second Thanas has the right idea, or rather agree with him. The Tearparty has the right idea. You must run extremists in the primaries. You must run them or Democratic will try to say he's more Republican than the Republican.

[Stravo]

Bean, you are so right on the leadership angle and the one example I can give that always stuck in my mind from recent history is George Bush and his Surge in Iraq. Everyone and their fucking mother gave him shit for that including Republicans. He stuck to his guns. Leadership is sometimes doing things that are not popular or go against Public opinion. Look at the Civil Rights movement, Kennedy and then LBJ both pushed for it even though it was extremely unpopular and in fact lost the Democrats the South. I don't think Obama, an African American, would make such a decision with that much at stake now because it means taking a stand and that is something anethema to the Democratic party at the moment.

Guess what BTW? The Surge worked.

[Guardsman Bass]

There is a lot of frustration it seems in the left leaning news organizations like MSNBC (which can provide almost as much comedy as Fox News if you're wathing it in the right mindset) concerning this supposed backlash against Democrats that is being forecast in many pre-election polls. They whine about Democrats not doing enought to highlight that it is Republicans that are blocking anything getting done or they lament the state of the stagnant economy that can be traced back to Bush mismanagement.

They're right on the problem of a downer economy for Democrats. It's usually the biggest issue for potential voters, so when you combine a weak economy with the usual loss of seats for the incumbent party (in this case, Democrats) in a mid-term election, you get the Democrats at risk for losing a ton of seats in Congress.

Besides, the Democrats are limited in how much they can do to highlight the obstructionism from the Republicans. They don't have the money to be constantly throwing attacks on them via paid media, and the political news does not have a lot of viewers (look at the MSNBC, Fox, and CNN numbers - all of them are usually below a million in terms of viewers).

So in essence what I am saying is that Democrats should be taken to task for a distinct lack of leadership on all leverls. They are afraid to make hard choices and in that indecision they now look (and probably are) inept. What do you do with inept leadership? You throw it the fuck out.

Regardless of whether or not they want to make hard choices, they're limited by situations ranging from the non-filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, to the conservative Democratic crowd living in vulnerable seats, among others.

I think the real weakness of the Democratic Party over the past two years has been that they haven't kept their base energized and willing to get out there,vote, and mobilize. That's going to be a big deal in November, when you'll have Republicans (particularly the tea-baggers) super-charged to show up and vote, while many Democrats are going to be apathetic and disappointed.

Does that mean it has to be a Republican that takes their place? That's my sticking point. I hate this democratic leadership because a) there is no leadership and b) they have no idea what to do, but does that mean I have to accept a Republican replacement?

If the Republicans take both the House and the Senate in November, it will kill off pretty much any chance of further reform, and possibly force some of the current reforms (like the comprehensive health care reform) into treading water. I doubt they'd go so far as to actually repeal it, but they can do nasty stuff like refusing to fund it, or selectively targeting provisions they know will be unpopular (and the lack of which will undermine the whole reform).

There are these things called primaries where you can vote for another democrat who is running against the incumbent but we all know with machine politics how easy that is.

That comes back to how energized the base is in your political party. The conservatives in the Republican Party are energized to the point where they can elect primary candidates on ideological grounds that will be un-winnable in November, but most of the Democrats aren't at that point.

Do the Democrats deserve what they are supposedly getting come election time?

No. In spite of some failures, they've done quite a bit that's good. They've passed a comprehensive health care reform (something that's be-deviled Democrats for decades), passed reforms of the Financial Sector, and at least made a stab at serious climate change legislation. That's on top of things like the Stimulus Bill.

Bean, you are so right on the leadership angle and the one example I can give that always stuck in my mind from recent history is George Bush and his Surge in Iraq. Everyone and their fucking mother gave him shit for that including Republicans. He stuck to his guns.

Foreign Policy and the War in Iraq is one of the areas where the President has a lot of power to act on their own. Bush was a second-term President, and he could carry out that policy because the chance that Congress would defund the war to stop him was slim (the Democrats had tried to cut off funding, and failed after 2006).

That's not so useful when it comes to any type of domestic policy. Look at Bush's lack of success in that area - he came into power promising Social Security reform, tax cuts, and so forth. He got the tax cuts because they had popular support among Democrats as well, but his other stuff failed aside from the Medicare prescription bill, which passed . . . also because it had a lot of popular support among Democrats.

Look at the Civil Rights movement, Kennedy and then LBJ both pushed for it even though it was extremely unpopular and in fact lost the Democrats the South.

They had the support of the liberal, northeastern wing of the Democratic Party, as well as a lot of support from the Republican Party at the time. True, they deserve credit for sticking to their guns through the brutal filibuster that the southern Democrats put up, but leadership can only take you so far if you don't have the electoral and popular support for it.

[Mr Bean]

Guess what BTW? The Surge worked.

As an aside the Surge failed horribly in it's stated goals. However after the fact they chopped the goals down until they had in fact succeeded.
The surge succed at it's first goals and failed at the rest

To note

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis...

America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

The GAO's report said this

This report discusses progress in meeting key U.S. goals outlined in The
New Way Forward, specifically, (1) improving security conditions; (2)
developing Iraqi security forces’ capabilities and transferring security
responsibilities to the Iraqi government; (3) facilitating Iraqi government
efforts to draft, enact, and implement key legislative initiatives; (4)
assisting Iraqi government efforts to spend budgets; and (5) helping the
Iraqi government provide key essential services to its people.

So they got number 1, and failed at 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Surge made Bagdad more secure. Or rather the ethnic cleansing of Bagdad combined with the extra troops and the Awakenings totally succeed in reducing violence. However everything else fell totally flat. People seem to forget that the surge had five goals and only met one. And even the one it had help with. A proper surge would have been 3 million troops not 30,000 but don't mind that 30 to 1 ratio here.

If wish to continue this we should split this off.

[Uraniun235]

^which will never happen because the Democrats like spineless people, no matter how often they get screwed by them. Lieberman, for example.

Lieberman's not spineless, he's corrupt. The Democrats are spineless for not kicking his ass out of the party caucus completely.

[Akhlut]

This reminds me a bit of that far off year of 2004, when John Kerry was running. And I recall what nearly everyone told me when they told me to vote for Kerry.

"He's not Bush!"

That's what I'm essentially seeing these days for Democrats. "S/He's not a Republican!" is being used for some candidates like it's a selling point among liberals to get the vote out for Democrats. Look at Zod and Crossroads earlier in this very thread. "Just hold your nose and vote for the Democrat, because at least he won't try to actively rape your dog!"

And, for fuck's sake, I'm sick and tired of dealing with a bunch of shitstains. I didn't have the stomach for them back in 2004 for the first election I could vote in, and it sure as hell hasn't grown on me since. So, I'm going to do what I did 6 years ago and 2 years ago: vote a Christmas ticket (green and red). If the Democrats can't be bothered to get someone with a spine on their ticket, why should I reward them with my vote? Maybe they need to lose a few times due to the Greens and Socialists siphoning off votes so they can see that, just maybe, they need to adopt some of those core values as their own, or that they'll get someone who isn't going to not be a Republican. But I'll be damned if I ever again vote for someone who is merely not going to actively hurt me, as opposed to someone who actually wants to help me.

[Johonebesus]

I've about decided that it would be better to let the republicans lose to destroy the country as fast as possible and get it over with. The main difference between the two parties is that the Democrats don't have the crazy right dragging them into cuckoo land. They are still servants of the corporate class that is sucking the wealth out of the nation as fast as they can. I don't see how any real reform is possible under the current political system. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I really do think that we've gotten to a point where the only sensible thing to do is to keep your head down, try to make yourself as safe and comfortable as possible and hope that when the system does come crashing down your are able either to survive or find a quick, painless death.

[General Zod]

That's what I'm essentially seeing these days for Democrats. "S/He's not a Republican!" is being used for some candidates like it's a selling point among liberals to get the vote out for Democrats. Look at Zod and Crossroads earlier in this very thread. "Just hold your nose and vote for the Democrat, because at least he won't try to actively rape your dog!"

Put up a candidate that isn't going to fuck me over, takes a stand on more than a handful of pet issues and looks halfway competent and I just might vote for them. Otherwise it's between a giant dildo and a shit sandwich.

[aerius]

I think the real weakness of the Democratic Party over the past two years has been that they haven't kept their base energized and willing to get out there,vote, and mobilize. That's going to be a big deal in November, when you'll have Republicans (particularly the tea-baggers) super-charged to show up and vote, while many Democrats are going to be apathetic and disappointed.

Kinda hard to keep your base energized when you've spent the last 2 years fucking them in the ass. Obama was supposed to deliver change and at least make a start at undoing all the shit that's gone down in DC, but he's just added more of his shit to the pile. If I were one of his supporters from 2 years ago, I wouldn't be able to think of any reason to vote for them again other than "not Republican", and frankly that's not much of a reason.

Do the Democrats deserve what they are supposedly getting come election time?

Yes. Healthcare reform was a joke, financial reform & regulation was and is a complete failure, the economic policy could not be more wrong if they tried, and damn near every important thing I can think of was FUBAR'd. It started with appointing a tax cheat to run Treasury and went downhill from there.

[Liberty]

There is a quintessential problem with our current two party primary picking political system.

To win the primaries, politicians have to appeal to their bases (right or left), but to win the general election, they have to get the majority of all the voting public to vote for them, which means they have to move to the center. Then, to get reelected, they have to STAY in the center, or at least manage to appeal to the majority of the voting public.

After the 1968 disaster, the democratic party changed their primary system, so that it was now based on the actual votes of actual people in the actual states, rather than just string pulling in the back. The result? McGovern and the 1972 disaster. The left (in general) loved McGovern, but he could not appeal to the entire voting public.

In the primary, democrats vote for the candidate they like best, republicans for the one they like best. Then, the candidates have a choice. Very often if a democratic candidate sticks to the left (like McGovern did), he will lose. We will see what happens with Christine O'Donnell this November; I'm going to hazard a guess that if she sticks to the right, she will lose. The other option is moving to the center, and having a better chance of being elected. (All of this analysis assumes that the voting public is fairly evenly split between left and right).

This creates quite a conundrum. If Obama had stayed left and enacted truly leftist policies (universal health care, for instance), he likely wouldn't stand a chance at being reelected. Instead, he moved to the center, and worked on compromises. I think he miscalculated, though, because now his base is upset with him and the right, because of the stupid political climate of the day, with it's "death panels" and "Obama is a Muslim" rhetoric, still hates him! I almost see Obama as a tragic figure.

That said, the American political system, IMO, has serious problems. Very serious problems. Part of me wants to throw up my hands in despair at the state of the political system and the stupidity of the common people.

Or maybe I just need to move to Sweden.

[Agent Sorchus]

Thanas is right that the Tea Party has a good idea of how to move. The problem is that there are almost no democrats that are willing to move left of center. I think what has to happen is voting very selectively for third parties, in such a way that you should not lose democrats seats in the House, and less so the Senate. The Democrats in the house are actually giving a better show than those in the senate.

It would also be best if we could massively kick the representatives that are more Washington than any of the monuments out during primaries. Yeah it makes things hard for the democrats in the general election, but that might just mean that will try harder to please the electorate rather than suck corporate dick.

[Liberty]

Thanas is right that the Tea Party has a good idea of how to move. The problem is that there are almost no democrats that are willing to move left of center. I think what has to happen is voting very selectively for third parties, in such a way that you should not lose democrats seats in the House, and less so the Senate. The Democrats in the house are actually giving a better show than those in the senate.

It would also be best if we could massively kick the representatives that are more Washington than any of the monuments out during primaries. Yeah it makes things hard for the democrats in the general election, but that might just mean that will try harder to please the electorate rather than suck corporate dick.

This is what I'm saying. Our two party political system is broken. All else being equal, if a democrat truly runs left of center, he will not be elected. To win a general election, he has to go to the center. If we run all truly left wing democrats, who run as left wing democrats, we lose.

The only reason Reid will likely be reelected is that the Republican party picked an unqualified right wing extremist who is not moving to the center (I explained this in my last post).

This is a result of our primary system and our two party system, which are deeply flawed.

[MKSheppard]

The big problem with the democratic party is that there's no overarching unity of purpose like there is with conservatism in the republican party that helps get everyone on the same page; even if they disagree about the specific implementation of goals and other purposes.

For example; business interests generally tend to trend towards the small government, low taxes, get rid of onerous regulation mindset that conservatives have; so there's an overlapping of interests. The wild cards in the republican tent are the social conservatives; but since they also have a significant overlap with the fiscal conservatives (government evil, die die die in a fire) coalition building is easier.

...

The democratic party on the other hand is a mishmash of wildly differing interests, each with their own core objectives.

You got the Progressives, like many of the people on this board. But getting them motivated is damned hard. Obama managed to motivate the progressives sufficiently to help gain a leg up in 2008, but it's proving hard to keep them motivated for 2010 and probably 2012, since there really isn't much desire to execute the progressive 'wish-list'.

There's also the fact that a lot of the goals of the progressives conflict in many ways with the interests of organized labor; who provide a lot of the financial backing and "legwork" for any democrat candidate to get elected through public sector union endorsements, bringing out the union organization to picket and go door to door.

On paper, the unions and progressives seem to be a match made in heaven. The reality is that in the U.S. a very large percentage of the union rank and file leans to the right; so the unions cannot help implement the full progressive campaign.

The Union leaders of course make the appropriate noises (we will punish those fat cats and health care for all!)

But...they cannot go full progressive, because then they'll be voted out by the rank and file union members in favor of a less progressive candidate.

There are of course other elements in play in the democratic party; such as the women's rights people (abortion for all); the environmentalists, minorities (NAACP).

The democrats have enough of a broad coalition of special interests that they can resolve the current infighting by kicking someone to the ground or out the door (my money is on the progressive element) and rely on their remaining tentpoles such as the unions.

The Republicans simply don't have that option, because the conservative base is THE tentpin of their party; and the base is getting tired of how mainstream Republicans promise small government et al, then when they're elected; the government still grows; just at a smaller rate.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a COFFEE PARTY and TEA PARTY emerge out of the wreckage of both major parties.

[Liberty]

While you have a point, Shep, the Republican party is still itself a combination of divergent interests, including:

Big business
Libertarians
Social conservatives (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc)
Neocons

Some of these simply don't fit together well. Libertarians and social conservatives, for instance, and even, to some extent, neocons and Libertarians. So they have this issue to deal with as well.

[Akhlut]

That's what I'm essentially seeing these days for Democrats. "S/He's not a Republican!" is being used for some candidates like it's a selling point among liberals to get the vote out for Democrats. Look at Zod and Crossroads earlier in this very thread. "Just hold your nose and vote for the Democrat, because at least he won't try to actively rape your dog!"

Put up a candidate that isn't going to fuck me over, takes a stand on more than a handful of pet issues and looks halfway competent and I just might vote for them. Otherwise it's between a giant dildo and a shit sandwich.

There's always third parties.

[Thanas]

The same is true of the Republican party, though. They both are huge parties with wildly differentiating attitutes and ideologies. COmpare Charlie Christ, for example, against Bachmann.

The difference is that the GOP is just willing to take more risks. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not and heads roll, but the Democrats in congress are just not unwilling to take any risk or face any confirmation battle.

[General Zod]

There's always third parties.

None of them take a stand on more than a handful of pet issues or look halfway competent.

[Akhlut]

There's always third parties.

None of them take a stand on more than a handful of pet issues or look halfway competent.

That might be more of a local issue than anything else. Here in Illinois, the Green Party actually has people who appear semi-competent and have a fully fleshed-out platform beyond just "ENVIRONMENT GOOD, INDUSTRY BAD!" Far better than what the usual Chicago political machine turns out and the center-right Democrats in the middle of farm country.

[Guardsman Bass]

For example; business interests generally tend to trend towards the small government, low taxes, get rid of onerous regulation mindset that conservatives have; so there's an overlapping of interests. The wild cards in the republican tent are the social conservatives; but since they also have a significant overlap with the fiscal conservatives (government evil, die die die in a fire) coalition building is easier.

It's not just that, either. The religious voters (particularly the evangelicals) also tend to be the "foot soldiers" for the GOP in the way that unions are for the Democratic Party, giving you even more overlap and concentration on the same overall set of conservative principles (plus fewer people overall that you need to reach, although that bites them in the ass when Democrats mobilize tons of Democrats and independents in a high-turnout year). That sort of concentration shows up when you poll them.

On top of that, conservatives tend to represent a larger fraction of the Republican Party than liberals do in the Democratic Party.

Kinda hard to keep your base energized when you've spent the last 2 years fucking them in the ass. Obama was supposed to deliver change and at least make a start at undoing all the shit that's gone down in DC, but he's just added more of his shit to the pile. If I were one of his supporters from 2 years ago, I wouldn't be able to think of any reason to vote for them again other than "not Republican", and frankly that's not much of a reason.

But that's the problem. Look at the Conservatives/Tea-baggers, who are angry and turning out to knock off Republican establishment candidates in primary elections. Where are the progressive groups trying the same on a large scale, like what said groups have done in eight separate races? The progressive wing seems to have simply fallen off into apathy by comparison.

[Themightytom]

I never vote thinking "Does this guy deserve to win?" I'm usually thinking, "What will I deserve, if this guy wins.

Which is why I tend to vote all over the map, because regardless of political affiliation and ideology there are terrible candidates on both ides and election season is pretty much a carnival of despair.

Do the Democrats as a political party deserve to lose based on their lack of leadership? Yes. Do the Republicans deserve to win because of their piss poor leadership? Nooooooo.

We really need a viable third party.

[Stravo]

But that's the problem. Look at the Conservatives/Tea-baggers, who are angry and turning out to knock off Republican establishment candidates in primary elections. Where are the progressive groups trying the same on a large scale, like what said groups have done in eight separate races? The progressive wing seems to have simply fallen off into apathy by comparison.

Just what do the Progressives have to be energized about? They came together and elected an African American president who they thought was one of them and now he turns out to be just another shill. I was a huge Obama backer and as far as I'm concerned he's a one termer. Leadership just does not exist in that man. He can write and deliver a beautiful speech its just too bad there's nothing else there.

He's not suckering me again and I bet quite a few progressives and others feel the same way. Like the old Soviet saying - "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."