Bye, UncleOsbert.
"He's dead, Jim!"
Posted on 04/03/2005 8:47:47 PM PDT by neverdem
To the Editor:
I disagree with former Senator Bill Bradley's hypothesis regarding the central cause of the Democratic Party's "inversion" ("A Party Inverted," Op-Ed, March 30).
The failures of the Democratic Party are not attributable to our longing for another J.F.K.-type figure to lead the way. Rather, we are weakened by the fundamental premises of our own ideology.
We place a very high value on the heterogeneity and diversity of our party. But by promoting heterogeneity and diversity, we are dispersing our power instead of consolidating it.
If we want to make progress, we need to focus on constructing a set of clear and concise principles and values that centralizes and homogenizes our message, but not our members.
Michael P. Marshal Pittsburgh, March 30, 2005
•
To the Editor:
Bill Bradley complains that Democrats who run for president have to build their own political pyramids because there is no stable, larger structure upon which they can rely.
But the Democrats do have pyramid elements that are not dependent on the candidate. There is a large source of perennial funding. Liberal sources and people like George Soros have recently been joined by MoveOn.org and various "527 committees."
The second tier includes Democrat-dominated establishment media and colleges and universities. The third tier includes consultants like James Carville and Paul Begala.
While a charismatic candidate might help, the Democrats' pyramid is already stable. But this is about the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, a subject Mr. Bradley does not address.
A. Jared Silverman West Orange, N.J., March 30, 2005 The writer was a Republican candidate for Congress in 2002.
•
To the Editor:
Bill Bradley describes the institutional advantages that Republicans have over Democrats. But he does not identify the institutional base that served the Democrats well when they were in the majority: labor unions.
The decline of organized labor was an essential ingredient in the decline of the Democrats, and until the party finds a way to help labor rebuild, or discovers a functional substitute, it will continue to be out-strategized by the G.O.P.
Howard L. Reiter Storrs, Conn., March 30, 2005 The writer is chairman of the department of political science at the University of Connecticut.
•
To the Editor:
Bill Bradley, in his analysis of the shortcomings of the Democratic Party, points to Bill Clinton as a charismatic victor who was unable to create a supporting organization around him. This is true, but to what extent was that because of the self-inflicted troubles he faced because of the Monica Lewinsky matter?
Democrats have nominated two uncharismatic, somewhat colorless candidates in the last two elections. Their inability to energize and galvanize voters who might have been undecided hurt the party's effort.
I agree that the Democratic Party needs to organize from the bottom up. It needs financing, a new generation of political activists, think tanks and, most important, a concerted effort at the state level to take back state legislatures and governorships.
Ed Weissman New York, March 30, 2005
•
To the Editor:
While I agree with Bill Bradley's advocacy of a Republicanesque pyramidal finance and information structure for the Democratic Party, I do not think that such a structure would remedy the practical electoral problems that the party is facing.
How would a pyramidal structure win Congressional seats for Democrats in Texas or Alabama? How would it help paint Missouri or Kansas blue again? Establishing a successful fund-raising and media network will not ensure electoral gains.
Democrats need to reinvent the message they send to the heartland before reinventing the foundation of their party.
Adam Shpeen Albany, March 30, 2005
Thank you for the advice. I especially like # 5. :)
Good to know that even if MA is under the dictatorship of Demons I could still do my duty.
After re-reading what I wrote - I hope I made it clear that when you write to the members of any committee - be sure and include the repub leadership as well.
And .. I agree #5 is fun.
I also warn people - no foul language, no name calling (although I have called the dems "lying sacks of puke"); and double check for punctuation, grammar, spelling, etc. A good presentation is half the selling job. If they have to stumble around trying to figure out what you're saying .. you've already lost the battle.
Bye, UncleOsbert.
"He's dead, Jim!"
I'm taking courses in pol sci and one of the things I'm learning is how to write to politicians so I have a basuc udea of what the letters should look like. I can be pretty civil if I have to. Instead of saying "Dear Sinator Jean Fraud Commie..." I can zddress him by his proper title, even though he doesn't deserve it. ;)
Oh....I thought they were going for the dairy vote.
The party doesn't have a plan. It's run out of ideas.
The sad truth is that they have already implemented most of the "Communist Manifesto". All they can do now is defend their turf.
What they don't get is it is not about some PR message. It is not about "packaging". It is about what is in your heart. And they cannot manufacture that. True conviction and courage cannot be given to you by a political advisor.
You're correct .. they probably don't "deserve it" - but your letters have much more power if you obey the rules.
Even though some of them have NO RESPECT FOR US - they do expect you to have respect for them.
Duely noted and understood. Besides, we reserve all the vitriol for the FR liberal bashing festival, its more fun that way. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
