I'm sensing a trend here (regarding Pelosi versus the Black Caucus)...
Posted on 11/08/2002 3:22:38 PM PST by xm177e2
The Suicide Queen
The Democratic party was rocked recently by the success of Republicans in the midterm elections. But something much bigger just happened, something much worse for the party than a temporary defeat. Permanent damage is being done to the Democratic party.
Democrats lost the midterm elections because the party leadership was disorganized and had no coherent agenda. There was no substance at the top. And the Democrats could have easily won these elections, with a different strategy.
Terry McAuliffe, the head of the DNC--the Number One Democrat--is an excellent fundraiser. But that's all he is, he's just a fundraiser, and not a true leader or capable politician. After the election, McAuliffe said things weren't so different from before and bragged Democrats had raised three times as much money this year as any previous midterm election, and went on bragging that he made Republicans spend a lot of their money to take the Senate. If you believe McAuliffe, just ask a Republican if s/he's hurting right now because Terry made his party spend a lot of money to get the Senate.
The tasteless Wellstone "memorial service" also had Terry's fingerprints all over it. Instead of coasting to victory on the sympathy vote, Mondale barely lost to Coleman.
Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt both refused to either support Bush in the War on Terror or oppose him. They just pointed out there were risks involved, and showed a lot of "concern." Refusing to take a stance on Iraq is what cost the Democrats this election.
Al Gore took a stance against the war on Saddam, but offered no constructive alternatives. He tried to turn the election into a referendum about him and what happened in Florida. If Florida were the big issue, Democrats would have won, their base would have been energized. But the Democratic base doesn't care about Florida anymore, that's clear from the Republican victory.
But what were the Democrats options? They had three real choices, before the election:
1 To take a stand against the war and Bush in general
2 To take a stand in favor of the war, and in favor of a left-wing social/economic agenda
3 To refuse to take a stand on the war, show a lot of "concern," but not be concerned enough to actually do anything.
They chose option 3 (straddling between options 1 and 2). Option 3 failed miserably. Democrats are now at a fork in the road, and must pick which way to go. Remaining where the party is will just ensure defeat again, and again, and again.
Democrats do best when the issues voters are focusing on are social issues, or Bush's mishandling of the economy. Republicans do best when national security is the issue. Voters trust Republicans more on this than the party of Bonior and McDermott.
The Democratic leadership failed to set the agenda for this election. People saw it in part as a referendum on Iraq. "Do I trust Bush to handle Saddam Hussein?" And the answer was resoundingly yes. The Democrats who succeeded in getting elected in competetive districts were mostly supporters of Bush when it came to the war.
This election was a referendum on the conflict with Iraq. And Bush won. That's hard for many on the left to accept, but it's also critically important. If the Democrats had recognized this, and gone with option 2 (in favor of the war), they could have run on the slogan "Strong on Defense, and Strong on Social Programs too" (or whatever), they wouldn't have had to leave Democratic voters who favored the war with the choice between social security and national security. If Democrats had run like this, they would have kept the Senate.
Jonas 'Martin' Frost III, a very liberal member of the House of Representatives wanted to do just that. He has a lot of experience operating in hostile territory, he's a Democrat from Texas, and he's been successful there (at least according to his press conference (look for "Rep. Martin Frost (D-TX) News Conference ")). He also spoke about supporting the war:
As to the question of the foreign policy and Iraq. The President successfully won, I believe, by standing for a strong America. There are people who feel differently within our party, but in the swing districts, in the marginal districts, in the closely contested districts where Democratic incumbents were reelected by narrow margins, almost every one of those incumbents voted with the President on the issue of Iraq. I do not think the Democratic party will rise or fall as a majority party in the House of Representatives on the issue of foreign policy. We have to make our case on domestic policy and let members vote their conscience on the issue of foreign policy [and] on war and peace. And if we try and make that the overriding issue, if we try and make defense foreign policy the overriding issue, we will lose, because the country is with the President on that issue.
If Democrats had ran the way Frost ran, they would have to support Bush's war, but they would have the mandate to run social issues, and would have more say about the war than they do now. If Democrats rally around Frost, they could win back the Senate in 2004. But they won't.
The idea behind road 1 (being openly anti-war, anti-Bush, and stridently left-wing) is that it will excite the party base, which stayed home this election because the party leadership was too moderate. And if the party base votes, according to road 1,
Nancy Pelosi wants to take the party down road 1. She's one of the most outspoken, far-left members of congress in the nation. She's a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is affiliated with the International Socialist Organization (the famous Socialist Internationale).
That might get hardcore democrats excited, but it really, really, really won't go over well in swing states or moderate/conservative areas. And conservative Democrats will find it harder to get elected when their Republican opponents link them to the "San Francisco Socialist" running the House. As Frost said, "I will tell you that, during the election... some republican candidates in swing districts did talk about the fact that... their democratic opponent would be aligned with the liberal leadership of the Democratic party."
Martin Frost has withdrawn his candidacy to become the new House Minority Leader, leaving it for Pelosi to take unchallenged (because she has the votes). This is a terrible, terrible mistake. This is suicide for the Democratic Party.
The idea that Democrats can wage ideological holy war against President Bush comes from their mistaken belief that the country is split 50/50. It's not, that's a myth. 50/50 only works if both parties are running towards the middle (as Frost wants the Democrats to do). But the nation is not split 50/50 between socialists and capitalists. Democrats will find the nation split more like 60/40. Republicans will slaughter them in the next elections if they don't go back to the middle.
And, to make matters worse for Democrats, if the country is split 60/40, Republicans can afford to ramp up their rhetoric a little, move a little further to the right, and still win 55/45. So by running to the left, the Democratic Party is only encouraging the Republicans (who are in power right now) to move further to the right. Not a good strategy.
Why is the Democratic Party--specifically, the members of the House of Representatives--taking such a stupid position? Why are they committing political suicide? I think the answer is George W. Bush. His enemies have gone insane with rage against him, a rage that is just not shared by the general public. Democrats will have to acknowlege this, and come back to reality, unless they want to suffer more and worse defeats.
Conservative and moderate Democrats aren't going to stand idly by while the Suicide Queen Pelosi destroys their party. The infighting that will come of this threatens the party itself, it's an existential battle for its soul. It's going to get very, very, very ugly.
That rage is palpable in the calls of the leftists to C-SPAN. It seems to be a given. They never really explain it.
"When you reach a fork in the road, take it." (Yogi Berra)
This is what I hope and expect the Democrats to do - to rush off in all (leftward) directions.
I'm sensing a trend here (regarding Pelosi versus the Black Caucus)...
You have got to check out Posts #57 and #68 regarding Pelosi's historical attacks on Blacks.
Amazing. I'd like to know its non-profit status. Most orgs like these are not permitted to endorse candidates.
No, I don't think so - at least, not from the sites I saw. The Progressive Caucus has been around for a long time. The site from the google cache (plus a couple of others I looked at) seems to indicate that the DSA more or less lobbies the Progressive Caucus on their issues. Kind of like NOW lobbying the Women's Caucus (ok, not exactly, because the WC includes ALL women, not just the feminist women, in Congress). Or the Libertarians lobbying the Conservative Caucus.
I don't doubt that Pelosi agrees with many of the positions of the DSA, though. But Progressives are NOT the same as Socialists. Similar, in that progrogressives want to "socialize" certain specific "universally needed" services like health care and education. But Socialists want to socialize ALL businesses, and as far as I know, progressives don't -- just ones that provide critical services to all (or at least, most) citizens.
On a personal note, I'm kind of surprised to see I can still get in here! I did try to register once before (several months ago) and my account was shut off before my I could even post. Could be because I used the screen name "EvilDUer" huh? Anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm not here to argue my beliefs, I just wanted to answer your post. I realize this is a board for conservatives to have their own "space" - a haven where you can let your hair down without being "assaulted" by arguments from the other side. After all, there are plenty of places you can read the other side's opinions. Of course I might just be projecting... I don't really know how you all feel about it, I'm just guessing it's the same way we feel at DU.
But then, why did you guys support the deeply dishonest and corrupt Clinton
I can't speak for all lefties - it might surprise you to know, I considered myself a moderate until I was "radicalized" by the Ken Starr witch hunt - and, of course, the 2000 (s)Election. (Had to get that in. *G*) I supported Clinton because I supported incremental change, not wholesale restructuring. I wanted to move *toward* more (what I view as) fairness in our society, with a bit more power for "the little guy" and a bit less power for "the big (money) guy" and corporations. I have no interest in breaking corporations, or even taxing them to death. I just want them to pay their fair share, and be accountable for their misdeeds. Some corporations under Reagan paid less in taxes than the the people who cleaned their offices did. The rightward tilt of the courts meant that more and more cases were being decided in favor of corporations and/or against individual's rights. (Again, my views. I don't expect you to agree.)
I think the "dishonest" and "corrupt" part is a matter of whose ox is getting gored, to be frank. I feel the same about Bush. As far as "fanatical defenders" - well, I think the whole Ken Starr-impeachment debacle was a cynical effort to overthrow a popular President with whom his attackers disagreed politically (and if not overthrow him, at least to prevent him from enacting any of the policies he advocated). It wasn't about the lying, it wasn't about the blow-job, it wasn't about a failed land deal. It was raw partisanship, and it was wrong. Whatever I thought about Clinton's antics paled beside my anger at the rabid (and ultimately, unjustified) attacks on him.
Nader. Well. What can I say? I believe that if he was truly a progressive, he wouldn't have been out stumping to defeat progressive Democrats, he would have been doing all he could to increase the progressive representation within the Democratic party - you know, the folks that actually have a chance of getting eleceted. I believe his true goal was to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans, because, in his own words, "it has to get worse before it can get better." Faugh. A pox on him!
You think Clinton and the Clintonistas stand for "the little guy" against big money and big corporations? You sure are naive. I wonder how you'll react when the scales fall from your eyes.
But Hillary is one of the far Left ones.
I don't think so ----we should let any moderate democrat (if there are any) join us and the rest of the party should die out. Let them be the party of the Hillarys and Pelosis and Sanchez sisters. They won't ever win much again.
DSA recognizes that some insurgent politicians representing labor, environmentalists, gays and lesbians, and communities of color may choose to run under Democratic auspices, as in the 1988 Jesse Jackson campaign, or operate as Democrats like Senator Paul Wellstone, and the 59 Democratic members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, one-half of whom are Black and Latino and all of whom possess strong labor backing and operative social democratic politics.If the Progressive Caucus isn't outright socialist, it has very, very close ties to socialists. Its members go to socialist dinners, and one of the directors is an outright socialist. If there was a Republican who had an association like this with fascist or racist groups, there would be no hesitation to call him on it. Nobody would say "well, he isn't a racist, but his friends are" or "he isn't really a fascist, he just wants a little more order in our society."Electoral tactics are only a means for DSA; the building of a powerful anti-corporate and ultimately socialist movement is the end. Where third party or non-partisan candidates represent significant social movements DSA locals have and will continue to build such organizations and support such candidates. DSA honored independent socialist Congressperson Bernie Sanders of Vermont at our last convention banquet, and we have always raised significant funds nationally for his electoral campaigns. At the same time, we were pleased to have Democratic Congressperson and Progressive Caucus member Bob Filner of San Diego introduce Sanders at the convention, and note that Progressive Caucus member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) will be honored at our annual Debs-Thomas-Harrington dinner this Spring in Chicago.
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.