Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush Disapproval Map: What More Do The Democrats Want? (322 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Country is Begging....BEGGING.... (230+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Serephin, Malacandra, kimo, Kimberley, Skubwa, BTP, incertus, Rob Humenik, MichaelPH, skippy, Go Vegetarian, tmo, coral, pb, AggieDemocrat, Jonathan, cassandra m, lapin, TealVeal, matt n nyc, lanshark, teenagedallasdeaniac, ply739, NYCee, slip kid no more, cedubose, Hornito, CA JAY, TaraIst, ubikkibu, Raybin, Ramar, Pandora, pHunbalanced, machopicasso, saraswati, existenz, Dems2004, janinsanfran, Lahdee, Cathy, kerry, LynChi, rogun, cotterperson, bramish, meg, DCDemocrat, OLinda, rhubarb, dji, terminal3, PhillyGal, autoegocrat, x, Sandy on Signal, HarveyMilk, frisco, ilona, Luam, Matilda, Joe B, bumblebums, exNYinTX, Creosote, msstaley, Vitarai, Bugsby, kissfan, INMINYMA, bronte17, conchita, scionkirk, Dazy, JLongs, macdust, mmacdDE, baba durag, elveta, nyceve, maxschell, wanderindiana, buckeyekarl, ksh01, exhausted by the spin, mrblifil, roses, llih, javelina, sgilman, peeder, k2winters, Fe, Bearpaw, Rona, lilnubber, fumie, Glinda, kitebro, splashy, Cedwyn, SairaLV, bato, wader, IM, jhwygirl, menodoc, emmasnacker, Revel, NYC Sophia, draftchrisheinz, jlynne, Chamonix, SeattleLiberal, Andrea inOregon, besieged by bush, TX Expat, exiledfromTN, tooblue, smash, kjo, peterborocanuck, chantedor, lizah, applegal, graciella, harrije, lecsmith, gnat, 4jkb4ia, BWasikIUgrad, inclusiveheart, walkshills, One bite at a time, Oaktown Girl, Willow72, Man Eegee, SanDiegoDem, bablhous, rebirtha, DrewDown, kd texan, The Gryffin, KingPing, bibble, environmentalist, weelzup, nehark, maybeeso in michigan, bloomer 101, escapee, deBOraaah, el dorado gal, DanielMN, irate, wizardkitten, progressive pete, Philoguy, Jersey Girl, ZappoDave, leeroy, citizenx, viral, stagemom, KiaRioGrl79, kldave, reflectionsv37, dansk47, Viceroy, majcmb1, Pam from Calif, jorndorff, John DE, The Nazz, ivorybill, bmaples, RElland, RickE, teachenglish, ElDiceo, Thursday Next, cerulean, Zergle, wiscmass, Bill Kush, EeDan, Jlukes, churchlady, Cory Bantic, Jizzol, Ghost of Frank Zappa, Jillian M, bluestateonian, Guglielmo, BENAWU, taracar, ThaliaR, occams hatchet, Testwizard, pico, Major Danby, highfive, Fasaha, Kingsmeg, Opakapaka, dharmafarmer, BlueInBoston, Still Thinking, tonyahky, Ellicatt, Dvalkure, Truza, mango, blueoasis, reid fan, birdbrain64, Lashe, LibChicAZ, imabluemerkin, NearlyNormal, bunk, Josh or Con or Both, lazybum, Helpless, vox humana, Carbide Bit, katasstrophy, LiterateWolf, AmySmith, Torquemadog

    for leadership.  It is begging for a choice.  It is desparate for water in this Bush drought.  

    Democrats!  Give the country water.  FIGHT!  

    •  speaking of leadership (72+ / 0-)

      Delaware, I just heard Sen. Harkin on Ed Schultz confirming he supported Feingold and Feingold's resolution.

      Harkin also said Dems were afraid to speak "truth to power." Interesting to me that I hadn't thought about it quite that way. It is, of course, truth to power.

      He also said that people are hungry for someone to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

      That is exactly it. Everyone knows it, even the Republicans. Most regular people don't know how to approach that. It's scary to them that we are leaderless. And, scary to speak that truth that our prez is incompetent AND insane.

      Say no to hate, bigotry, and the author of the Fed. Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave. Please donate to Angie Paccione.

      by OLinda on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 02:32:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You know (19+ / 0-)

      I guess many, many elected dems believe the sit-back- and-shut-up-while-the-republicans-implode mode of thinking.  It seems like the more the rank and file or the entire populace screams, the more the elected dems hide behind their if it ain't broke, don't fix it coccoon. I think this kind of thinking will entrap us in November.

      The latest polls, which show Bush at an all-time low approval rating also show that many voters trust republicans a bit more on issues such as Iraq and national security.  This in spite of the ports deals and the Iraq screw ups.

      I believe republican strategists will hammer on the preceived differences between teh parties this election cycle and take every chance to make us look weak, indecisive, and appeasing.  

      That's why I think it is important to get the Dems actually fight, state ideas, call bullshit, use every expert who's had known success.  Economy? Use the now pundits who carried the day for Clinton's solvency.  War? Get Clark out there. We have had our heyday and those folks are still around.  We should use them.

      When we hide rather than speak, we risk the republicans pointing pointing at our feet sticking out under the curtain.

      Blogatha! The political, the personal. Not necessarily in that order.

      by ksh01 on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 02:44:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not these Dems (6+ / 0-)

        What a dilemma. Vote them in, more of the same. Vote them out, even worse.

        This will not be overcome through obedience.

        by paraphrase on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 02:58:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You know, I often wonder if something... (28+ / 0-)

        more sinister isn't in play. I mean, well before the most recent crop of Dems, we've seen them run from fights for over four years now. I place the starting date, back to when Daschle and Leahy were mailed anthrax. Were the threats (implicit or implied) given then, and are those threats what is causing the near abdication of a meaningful Democratic opposition now?

        There just has to be something more in play here. For over two hundred years, through good times and bad, through wars and peace, the parties have fought it out, ....that is, until just after 9/11. I do not believe that 9/11 in and of itself, nor the war(s) are the reasons for the ongoing Dem passivity. I truly believe that they have been threatened, and/or intimidated, to the point where they may actually be in fear for their lives, and/or, perhaps those of their families. There simply is no other explanation. We need to find out what it is, expose it, and take our country back.

        And by the way, where is the anthrax killer, and what happened to the investigation?

        "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by Hornito on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 04:05:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And I might add.... (7+ / 0-)

          that perhaps Paul Wellstone's demise may have scared some Dems too, especially those who don't buy into the fact it was an "accident".

          And speaking of Paul, is there anyone left in this country right now who could say that they are 100% positive the Bushies weren't involved in Paul's "accident" somehow?

          Having said that, I don't think people are buying more tin foil these days, but I do think that the actions of the Bush regime over the last five years are causing their "hats" to grow. After all, it was Paul's demise that allowed them to complete their takeover....

          "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

          by Hornito on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 04:17:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll never fully accept that plane crash (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hornito, macdust, ghostofaflea, deepfish

            was an accident.  Wellstone had become a liberal beacon of hope, and his death was just too, too convenient.  Ugh, and to think that Norm Coleman now holds his seat - makes me clench my stomach muscles just to type his name.

            •  Have you heard about the new book re: Wellstone? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              There is a new book out, written by two professors -one a former marine, that lays out a pretty clear case that Wellstone was probably murdered.

              I haven't read it yet, but I have seen the reviews and read summaries.

              Coincidences?  In politics, there are no coincidences.  

              When the Dems take the House back there should be an immediate investigation into the death of a US Senator, his family, some of his staff and the pilots.

              The NTSB is supposed to hold such a hearing but apparently ruled it unnecessary in this case.

          •  How easy to have an agent mechanic who fixes (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hornito, deepfish

            airplanes work on Wellstone's. And don't forget the last president who went up against the Pentagon was assasinated. Yes,JFK. I think Clinton was afraid once he got in and knew more secrets in his briefings.

            And Carnahan? And young John Kennedy who was definitely going to be a threat in the near future? Let's see,just scramble the instrument panel so it reads opposite? Wouldn't that be simple to do?

            Like putting in a gearshift backwards so first is where reverse usually is. I had a dyslexic do that to one of my cars.

          •  Please, no (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChicDemago, IM, vcmvo2, kingubu, deepfish, DanielMN

            I worked on the Wellstone campaign.  I was with Paul and Sheila, Mary and Tom the day before the plane crash.  It was an accident.  A tragic, horrible accident.  

            There is no evidence for what you are suggesting. It pains me to see people adopt the "paranoid style" of politics in anything related to Wellstone.  

            Find out what's the matter with K Street at

            by dtmky on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 10:20:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Get out the tinfoil (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Small planes crash, especially in inclement weather.  It's an unfortunate truth.  More dems die in small plane crashes because republicans have the money to fly in well-maintained corporate jets.

            IF someone had decided to kill Wellstone, there are far easier ways to do it than sabotaging a plane (which is risky because investigators look for sabotaged parts in the wreckage).  A bullet in the head by a "lone nut" would suffice.

            Of course, the GOP doesn't need assassinations any longer, not with the media under their spell.  They need only smear a politician to render him impotent.  It would have been easy to smear Wellstone - make up something about him molesting his students as a professor, pay a few girls to lie about it, PRESTO, instant neutralization of a pesky liberal.  This would have been far easier, and far less risky, than trying to kill Wellstone.  It also would have been more effective, since instead of a martyr, they would be left with a smeared senator who's seat is ripe for a GOP win.

            -7.4, -5.9 | "Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government." -Thomas Jefferson

            by Subterranean on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 10:54:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

              with the bit about it being easier to conjure up a story by inventing a set of lies about Wellstone's character.  Wellstone would not have stood for that kind of nonsense, and nobody would have believed it.

            •  I accept your premise ... (0+ / 0-)

              that small plances crash, especially in inclement weather.  

              But how come it never happens to Republican pols in small planes?  And how come it happens ... with pretty fair regularity ... to Dems?  As mentioned above, not only Wellstone, but Carnahan and JFK Jr.?

              Like it or not, it's a pattern.

              There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

              by ThirstyGator on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 06:41:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  One is chance... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                There's an old saying which I believe dates back to WWII, and perhaps much earlier: "Once is chance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action."

                Small planes are really risky, and Democrats log plenty of hours in them, so some crashes are to be expected. But after three crashes, two of them involving high-profile progressives, I'd certainly want to start doing some statistics--and keeping a closer eye on the runway. Plenty of progressive politicians have actually been shot, so fatal sabotage is possibility.

                As the saying about "enemy action" suggests, there needs to be a point where you start paying attention.

        •  blackmail? (7+ / 0-)

          I was having this thought the other day, which I would never have imagined myself even contemplating previously. Even now I fear it might be a bit tinfoily, but... what the hell is going on?

          Until now I had thought that it could all be explained by the dreaded Democratic political consultants. But are they really that good at being bad? They can't win an election for shit... and yet they seem to have total power over the minds of virtually all our elected representatives.

          Is it inconceivable that Bush/Rove have spied on our Congressional representatives (including those in their own party, I would suspect) and found something that they wouldn't want their wives (or significant others, or constituents) to know?

          Put it this way: If Rove had the means of getting "the goods" on members of Congress, do you think he'd hesitate to use it?

          It wouldn't have to be all representatives, just some critical portion of them.

        •  And by the way, where is the anthrax killer, and (0+ / 0-)

          Have often wondered this.  A cover-up? nah, couldn't be.

        •  Sure don't hear anymore (0+ / 0-)

          about the anthrax mailer.

        •  How many in Congress think it was accidental? (0+ / 0-)

          Ask yourself this question:  how many members of Congress, in their heart of hearts, really think that Wellstones death was an accident?

          And I am not talking just Dems or Republicans.  I am talking both parties.  At some level, everyone of them suspects that it is a possibility.

          Does that make them cooks and lunatics?  

        •  another possibility (0+ / 0-)

          I wrote the "blackmail" comment (see below), but now  a much more likely explanation has occured to me:

          Hilary's vested interest in Feingold's fialure

      •  Exactly right! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jhwygirl, nasarius

        The inert "lesser of evils" position as a strategy will not automatically translate into victory this November.  Nor will a lame "we can do better" BS slogan.

      •  I am...and will always be... (19+ / 0-)

        a Democrat.  I have not left the party, I am just calling them out.  

        Think of it as persuasion.  Senator Reid is now thinking to himself..."Well if Delaware Dem is for censure, then surely it must be right."

        •  EGO (0+ / 0-)


          *"It is the difficulties that show what men(women) are" ..Epictetus*

          by Chamonix on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:54:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Here, here... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThirstyGator, Creosote, KiaRioGrl79

          I've been a "fighting Dem" for over 40 years, and I'm not giving up now. I know Harry Reid, and know he is a good man. If the Dems aren't doing the things an opposition party should be doing right now, I feel there has to be more behind the reasons for it (see my posts above).

          We need to find out the truth, and watch their backs. I have a feeling they may be under a more sinister threat than we even know about.... I wish I could get Harry to talk to me about it.

          "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

          by Hornito on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 04:24:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You know, (4+ / 0-)

            I've always watched their backs. But if someone "like me" is getting fed up...well they need to act. Here you are talking about a voter, 45 yrs old, mother of many, growing up a couple blocks from war protests in Madison. Strong Democratic history. I pale as a Liberal compared to most I encounter. But yet, I am one of so many. I have backed Feingold from waaay back.

            And I am getting fed up! This is no little thing and I know at the very least I represent a few, if not many. I felt a shift inside me this week. Not to leave the party. Nope. It's my party. But I never got a clearer message that it's time for me to be very, very choosy about who I support. It's time for me to ask for more. I redacted all financial support, for now. I'm not rich, but a check I normally sent elsewhere went instead to Russ's PAC this week.

            Of course! I support the Dems, I am a Dem. I expect them to act like Dems.

            I will exercise patience. I don't disagree with you. I think part of the process you are talking about here requires that I BALK! Make some noise! Put some ooompfh behind it all.

            "If you're going through hell, keep going". -Winston Churchill

            by One bite at a time on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 07:00:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Proud Feingold Finalist (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Angie in WA State, gogol

          Our Campaign for Indiana's 6th Congressional District is one of the ten Feingold finalists for aid from the Progressive Patriots PAC.  I haven't seen any other active netroots campaign announcing this, and I believe in getting an early voting lead and keeping it!  So next Monday through Friday I will be on Senator Feingolds Site, his blog ads, his emails, and I am asking consideration for voting for our campaign.  Senator Feingold is not alone in wanting America back, and neither are any of us!

          Barry Welsh Indiana 6th District Democratic Congressional Candidate

          •  Oh No, I posted under my wife's log in, she hates (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gogol, javelina, deepfish

            it when I do that.  

            It is me though!

            Barry Welsh Indiana 6th District Democratic Congressional Candidate.  

            I am going to give a recommend before I switch to my login though, because I know she would!

            •  Delaware Dem (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Thanks for this Diary.

              In Indiana's 6th, we have seen some incredible growth in people coming into our campaign.  There isn't a lot of money in this area since all the manufacturing jobs are gone, but we are excited and hopeful that what is happening now, can continue until November.  

              I am giving Senator Finegold's montion some time and I have hope that people are calling Senators and just as with Murtha, the truth will come out.  There will not be consequences to the administration, but there will be public awareness, and when your opponent is a lock step Neo Conservative, as Bush goes, so he goes to some extend!

              Thanks again for that wonderful map.

              Barry Welsh Indiana 6th District Democratic Congressional Candidate

              It's simple Math PENCE=BUSH=MITCH=Bad for Indiana+Bad for America

              by Barry Welsh on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 09:32:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  WTF. (0+ / 0-)

      You were in LA and didn't look me up?

      "I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

      by Mike S on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 02:48:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is why we need to support Feingold (30+ / 0-)

      From "The American President":

      People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

      But Feingold has been providing genuine leadership in the Senate since 1993. I am certain he is the best of all the current senators, and I hope he will be the next president.

      Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978. -7.63, -5.64

      by wiscmass on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 02:54:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Keep on that messsage! (19+ / 0-)

        I think you're completely right. But everytime I say it I hear stuff like: "unelectable...twice divorced... too liberal... jewish... he's a northerner... we need a southern governor... blah... blah... blah..." repeating all the same kind of weak and wobbly stuff that cut Howard Dean off at the knees.  We need to work on keeping the message out there that we want honesty, intellegence and integrity in office, and that Feingold has all of what we want.  

        •  STANDING FOR SOMETHING (16+ / 0-)

          We want an opposition party that actually does some opposing. We want a nominee who believes in something -- not so rigidly that he refuses to ever compromise or admit he might be wrong, but who has a set of core principals that governs what he does. Most of all, we want someone who stands for something besides electability.

        •  I hear all that too, but... (27+ / 0-)
          1. "Unelectable" is why we've ended up with candidates like Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. All great men who would have made great presidents, but probably not the best candidates in the Democratic field.
          1. Reagan was divorced once. Dumbya was a coke fiend. They both got elected twice. And among Rethug candidates for 2008, Gingrich and Giuliani both cheated on their first wives.
          1. "Too liberal" is just like "unelectable" -- it leaves you searching for a candidate who panders to the center. The Rethugs aren't pandering to the center, and they still manage to elect their scum of the earth candidates. We should elect the person with the best ideas and the credibility to get things done -- and that's Feingold in spades, which is why he won re-election in this very purple state in 2004 by double-digits.
          1. Anyone who wouldn't vote for Feingold just because he's Jewish wouldn't vote for any Democratic nominee. The Rethugs have already cornered the market on the KKK vote, and even if they hadn't, I wouldn't want anything to do with a party that wanted their vote.
          1. Half the country lives in the North. If we think we can't win without a Southern nominee -- and most of our potential Southern nominees couldn't even win their home states -- then we might as well write off the whole country.

          In short, all those arguments are just so much of the same bullshit political consultants are spouting to our senators, telling them not to join Feingold and stand up for the Constitution. And frankly, all those independents and centrists that they're so worried about losing will have a hell of a lot more respect for the Democratic Party if we would all unite behind someone who stands for principles over politics.

          Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978. -7.63, -5.64

          by wiscmass on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:32:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  A Carter for the 21st Century? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          We need to work on keeping the message out there that we want honesty, intellegence and integrity in office, and that Feingold has all of what we want.  

          So did Jimmy Carter.  Remember how well that worked out?

        •  YYEEEEAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cathy b, saucy monkey

          repeating all the same kind of weak and wobbly stuff that cut Howard Dean off at the knees.

          What cut Howard Dean off at the knees was a combination of an unfortunate tendency to speak the truth vis-a-vis the overinflated importance of the Iowa caucuses, and the late-night pundits and right-wingnuts taking The Scream and playing it into the ground.  He was on the way down after Iowa and never recovered before he was replaced as frontrunner by a Northern senator (not a Southern governor).

        •  don't the bushies keep on (0+ / 0-)

          repeating and repeating their message and don't give a shit what people think, we should do the same thing.
          these thugs keep doing their guilt trip thing on our democratic senators.  

      •  Rank and File (7+ / 0-)

        What will it take for the rank and file of the Democratic party to walk away from Clinton toward Feingold? What would it take for the DLC to embrace Feingold? What would it take for Howard Dean to abandon his goal of the 2008 presidency and to swing his Deaniacs toward Feingold? If you can answer these questions, you may get a candidate that generates enough adult passion to get nominated. I don't know what it will take, but only then will there be a clear difference between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. Someone to vote for, not a choice when voting against the other guy. Somebody with a positive message, not a "better ideas" policy free campaign. Someone who embraces and exudes the progressive netroots character of today's Democratic faithful and energetic future.

        Ban Intolerance Now!

        by brahma on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:27:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know about the DLC or Clinton, but... (5+ / 0-)

          ...I don't think it would take much to get Dean to support Feingold if he didn't have to at least appear neutral as the head of the DNC. See, like Feingold, Dean is an honorable man who wants what is best for the country. He is far more valuable to us right now as head of the DNC than he would be as a candidate for public office -- he's probably the only Democrat with the credibility to build a 50-state party right now.

          Besides, I seriously doubt Dean has his sights set on winning the nomination for himself. He knows all of the above.

          And Feingold's "better ideas" are a positive message. Ask anyone from Wisconsin -- we'll give you a few million reasons why Feingold wins here so easily in a state as purple as this.

          Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978. -7.63, -5.64

          by wiscmass on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:37:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dean is not necessary... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            grrr, KiaRioGrl79, wiscmass, blueoasis

            I would imagine that Feingold, with the Censure resolution, has gone a long way to win most of the Deaniacs over. He has had me for a while now, but I find I'm generally ahead of the game in politics. But, after doing censure, if he hasn't roped them in, then he definitely has their attention.

            If we really want Feingold, we should define the choice for the Democratic electorate: Do you want someone with principles who stands for something you can believe in, or more of the same?

            This charge is best leveled by a leading candidate and at an opposing establishment choice (presumably Hillary).

            To pave the way for Feingold, all other progressive candidates should be discouraged from entering the race and splitting the progressive primary vote. This includes Kucinich. The sooner we consolidate behind a candidate, the better.

            •  Works for me (0+ / 0-)

              I think the best strategy for doing that, though, would require an endorsement from Al Gore. And while Gore has said he has no plans to run, I suspect he would prefer to remain neutral until the pack has thinned out a bit.

              As for Hillary, I think she is most useful as a frontrunner to attract the ire of the Rethugs -- provided she really doesn't plan to run, as she has claimed in the past. There's no question she'll be re-elected this year, so if she can draw the Rethugs' fire for the next year and a half or so, she can do the rest of the field -- Feingold included -- a big favor.

              Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978. -7.63, -5.64

              by wiscmass on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 05:13:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Better Ideas (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I was referring to the vacuous pronouncements of the Kerry campaign, 'trust us, we have better ideas', without actually talking about any of them.

            Feingold actually talks ideas, not about the virtual existance of "better ideas" than the other guys.

            I'm with you, I think Feingold is the best instance of a living breathing progressive who seems to be angling for a run at the Whitehouse. I am concerned that Dean's seeming abandonment of the national Democratic races, in favor of the state party foundation is tactically focused on creating allies at the state delegate level, for the prupose of securing a nomination. Not that I think very many of the national Democratic elected representatives are worthy of progressive support, mind you. If Dean isn't running, then his strategy is very forward thinking. If he is running, then he is usurping the progressive mantle by way of subterfuge, and I don't support that kind of politicking.

            Ban Intolerance Now!

            by brahma on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 07:51:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Effective Senator (0+ / 0-)

          I really think Feingold is great and effective Senator.  However, I'm certain that he would get trounced by any republican in a presidential election.  I just don't think the democrats are going to win with a Senator from a state the democrats will carry anyway.  The party out of power needs to run against Washington D.C. (see Carter, Reagan, Clinton & Bush II), not nominate a D.C. insider, with a long voting record the GOP can twist and distort, from a state that the dems will carry anyway.  Democrats need to make the GOP fight for the south and west.  They can do that with Warner, Clark, Vilsak or Richardson but not with Feingold.  Keep Feingold in the Senate where he belongs.

          •  Wisconsin isn't Massachusetts (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gogol, perro amarillo, blueoasis

            Gore and Kerry both just barely carried Wisconsin, so I wouldn't call that a "a state the Democrats will carry anyway."

            A candidate from a Republican states or swing state isn't necessarily a shoo-in to win in the general election.  George McGovern of Saudi Dakota proved that.  A Democrat from a heavily Democratic state CAN understand the people in Republican states.  In 2004, Howard Dean helped Brian Schweitzer become governor of MONTANA, a state with a reputation as a haven for right-wing militia kooks (like the Freemen).

            I think Russ Feingold would be an excellent candidate, along with Al Gore and Wesley Clark.

          •  Here (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            perro amarillo, lgmcp

            we go again. This is the same line of thought that continually gets us no where. Let's as a party forget about electability and start concentrating on a candidate who really walks the walk. We need a person who can lead and is not afraid to take a stand on issues. This constant holding a finger up to see which way the political wind is blowing is BS. Trying to find the perfect pc person to sell to the American public makes us no better than ad man trying to sell a used car. Americans will vote for a person with integrity, even if they don't agree with them on every issue. Leadership involves letting the public know where you stand and not being afraid to voice it.

            "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson

            by llih on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 05:48:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              So you're saying that the American populace will vote for the more principled person.  Yeah, I used to think that way too, back when Mondale got destroyed by Reagan.  He was candid and had loads of integrity but it didn't get him anywhere.  

              I want to win at all costs.  The republicans have game plans for (1) Northeastern liberals, (2) Senators with long voting records and (3) Washington D.C. insiders.  They've been using these game plans to kick the shit out of democrats for years.  I've watching it for so long now, that even I could run a successful campaign against Feingold.  

              However, the republicans have trouble with democratic govenors from moderate states who can run as outsiders.  Check the scoreboard.  I like Feingold a lot, but I've been watching presidential races since the 70's and he will get his ass kicked, integrity or not.  

              •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

                People are getting tired of the politics as usual BS. We put Kerry up because he was "electable". He got slimmed and swiftboated every which way. Now he may have really won Ohio, but that is for another discussion. The fact is no matter who we put out there, the Rethugs will play the same old game. The idea is to change the game, not play along with them. If they attack our guy on a womens right to choose. Instead of being wishy washy and vague, come out and say "I support a womens right to choose." Then explain why.

                We need a leader who can not only articulate his beliefs and principles, but can think on his feet. We need a person who will not abandon principle, in favor of the latest poll results. Americans will support someone who is strong of character and not afraid of a fight. Americans want to know where their President stands on issues and why. They want to know that they can trust what their President says.
                Your wanting to win at any cost, makes us no better than the opposition. What's next? Start a war to get re-elected?

                "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson

                by llih on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 06:29:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Kerry Electable? (0+ / 0-)

                  Kerry was not "electable".  I never bought that b.s.  You can't run against the party in power with a D.C. insider and Northeaterners just don't play well in the rest of the country.  That's why Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Feingold and all of the other dilusional D.C. insiders (Biden) would all lose against any GOP nominee.  

                  I don't suggest playing the GOP game.  I suggest playing the game that wins for democrats by nominating a governor from moderate state who can run against Washington D.C.  That's my threshold.  As far as I'm concerned, Senators, Northeasterners and longtime D.C. insiders need not apply.  They're not electable in this environment.

                  I agree with your description of the type of leader that we need.  I think that Warner, Clark and Vilsak (to a lesser extent) have what it takes.  

                  I also like what Feingold is doing in the Senate, as he is becoming a point man for attacking the Republicans.  That's great, as he can take some of the heat from the press and GOP, while the eventual democratic nominee stays above the fray, so to speak, and looks presidential.  We need a coordinated attack.    

        •  Somebody tell me who Hillary's BASE is? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KiaRioGrl79, lgmcp

          I'm getting tired of the NYT, etc., proclaiming that Hillary is the defacto Dem nominee for president in 08...who ARE her supporters? Is there a website out there that reflects a strong pro-Hillary point of view - because none of the Liberal websites I frequent are at ALL enthusiastic about her running.

          I'm a lib Dem from NY - I think Hillary is tolerable as a Senator, might make an OK Prez but WHY when there are better and probably more ELECTABLE Dems out there.

          PS - I may be being a little disengenious about questioning her 'base' - I'm assuiming its the super-duper rich establishment Dems...even there any website with active participation that REPRESENTS a pro-Hillary POV?

      •  The reply (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FishGuyDave, Lashe

        President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had Presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand, 'cause they're thirsty. They drink the sand 'cause they don't know the difference.

        wiki link

        Say no to hate, bigotry, and the author of the Fed. Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave. Please donate to Angie Paccione.

        by OLinda on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:36:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Minor correction (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The March 06 coloring for Alabama is way too blue for +5% (just look at neighboring Mississippi, with +2%).  I know it makes me sound pedantic for pointing that out, but it makes that portion of the map look much bluer than it really is.

      Just sayin'

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 02:55:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But do you MEAN it? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Green Locust, Jlukes, lgmcp, Carbide Bit

      Or are you going to forgive and forget by next week, and whine even louder when it happens again?  (Speaking of Delaware, I heard this plenty after the Bankruptcy betrayal a year ago.  To many of us, none of the more recent betrayals is a surprise.)

      If there will be no consequences from you - no changes in how you pledge your votes - the Democrats will not magically become accountable and will not change.  Do you honestly expect leadership from Reid or Pelosi on this, when they won't even support the 85% of Democrats (and 53% of Americans) who want them to stand up and stop funding the death of Americans overseas?

      If this is sincere, you'll help ignite a popular revolution.
      If this is bogus, I guess we'll know by next week.

      You may think the Democrats are abdicating their power.  But it's us.  We blogging campaigners and voters are more powerful than we realize.  If we don't demand accountability, it's time to quit blaming them.

      •  oh good god (0+ / 0-)

        Are we going to question the sincerity of everyone who suddenly stops defending the establishment wing of the party? If so, then we certainly aren't going to keep any converts for long. Shame on you, Levity.

        •  it's a question, a reminder - not an attack (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I'm delighted Delaware Dem is converting.  I not only want to take him at his word, I'm optimistic about change when we have DD on our side.

          I just don't want him to wake up sheepish tomorrow with an "oops - never mind".

          Moreover, I'm saying we will fail if we lose our nerve - far from driving anyone away, let's hold one another accountable.  I hope DD feels supported and empowered, not attacked by that.

      •  People like you... (5+ / 0-)

        hate the Democrats more than the Republicans.  I will never agree with that sentiment.  Do I think the Democratic Leadership in Congress (Pelosi, Hoyer, Emanuel, Reid, Durbin) needs to wake up, get off their ass and fight?  Yes.

        And this diary is bent on persuading them to do it.

        But what you want is the following: for me to leave the party or attack the Dems as I would Bush if they do not do what I want.

        Nope.  I will never do that.  What I will do, and what everyone here on this Democratic site should do, is redouble my efforts to change the party, supporting grassroots challengers to the those politicians who most harm our party (i.e. Lieberman).    

        I am still a party man.  Today, the party needed a kick in the ass.  

        •  I'm sorry if I made you defensive (0+ / 0-)

          and I suppose pine guessed right - maybe he knows you better than I do.  

          On the other hand, you're guessing wrong, and the words you're trying to put in my mouth are way off base.  

          Today, the party needed a kick in the ass.  

          We agree.  Please say you aren't hinting that tomorrow the accountability will be over.  That's all I was asking.

          •  Accountability. (0+ / 0-)

            You see, here is where we part ways I think.  I am more interested in holding Bush and the Republicans accountable, since, well, you know, they CONTROL EVERYTHING ON THIS PLANET.

            I think you are more interested in punishing Democrats who don't do what you want when you want it done.  

            Now, today, you and I agree.  Tomorrow, I think we will both still be persuading our party to do the right thing here.  

            But next week, there may well be other battles to fight.   You say that is abdicating accountability.  I don't.  

            •  Yes, accountability. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ben masel

              It's not respectable for anyone to claim the Republicans CONTROL EVERTHING ON THIS PLANET including my vote.

              Moreover, you're really guessing wrong about me.  If you re-read my original post carefully, you'll find it says to quit blaming the Democrats and look more closely at ourselves.

    •  Good on you, Delaware Dem. (0+ / 0-)

      Hope youve been making some phone calls to DC.

      Should a liberal Dem blog be driven into "safe zones" by a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 03:51:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  On my drive home from work (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catfish, KiaRioGrl79, blueoasis

      and since Missoula NO LONGER HAS AIR AMERICA RADIO...I am forced to listen to conservative talk radio (well maybe not forced, but I gotta have my politics) and Michael Savage was ranting and raving, telling his listeners that they were MORONS IF THEY DIDN'T OUST REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED WASHINGTON...Michael Savage!

      The End is Near....very near.

      In loving memory of Sadie, my camping, hiking & swimming friend. August 9, 1995 - January 23, 2005. She was the very best.

      by jhwygirl on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 04:33:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Savage? (0+ / 0-)
        Are you shittin me???

        And why are my feet suddenly very cold?

        I don't like Bizarro World... I want to go home to America.

        by willers on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 05:00:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  he's been off Bush (0+ / 0-)

          for quite a while. Actually criticized the GOP for its primary-less 2004 election cycle, though I don't see as how that was a surprise. But Savage - despite being horrific - is a libetarian, not a Republican.

          Others won't ever dare to criticize - Ingraham (puke), OLeilley, Limbaugh ... without the neo-theo-right, they're out of business. But even among Republican blow hards, there are some who seem to have seen the light. Scarborough's one - since Katrina he's been pretty angry and hostile to the administration.

          not that I'm defending them! But since I can't tolerate contemporary music radio stations, can't be bothered to figure out how to use or keep batteries in the hi-md player, am annoyed beyond words with npr, and have a cassette deck in the car ... well, sometimes I wind up listening.

        •  yep. and get this.... (0+ / 0-)

          he's got a promo running that has him bragging about how HE got chimpman elected, cut from just-after-the-election shows.

          He was fired up about the Senate vote today on the budget.  It had him saying that every single one of them need to go.....

          In loving memory of Sadie, my camping, hiking & swimming friend. August 9, 1995 - January 23, 2005. She was the very best.

          by jhwygirl on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 06:58:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know if what people want (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nasarius, lgmcp

      is best characterized as "leadership".

      I mean the word is used by Republicans and Bush all the time. I don't think Democrats should run with the same word. I don't look for leadership, because what does it mean, if the first class leader leads you to into a messy desaster.

      I heard Edwards using this phrase often. It doesn't tell me a thing. I think it's a lame expression. You need to find another word. Leadership doesn't hit the nail of what people want most.

      I certainly believe that people want just laws and a Congress, who writes just and fair laws, a Congress that uses fair rules, respects those laws and writes more laws to defend that the just laws are protected from abuse.

      I think people want that Congress protects them from abuse of power of the executive branch, when this branch tries to undermine the the independence and competition of the other two branches, I think people want a Congress that is voting its conscience and not voting according to interest groups of their constituency.

      Please find something else than this shallow word "leadership". I don't crave for leaders, I crave for courageous, principled, moral, fair, competent civil servants, who work for the good of the citizen, I crave for a meaningful, democratic electoral process. I crave for control of the influence of money from interest groups on legislators. I crave for a assuredly fair justice system.

      A country is not only what it does - it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates. - Kurt Tucholsky

      by mimi on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 06:57:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Coming from you (0+ / 0-)

      This is the most encouraging thread I've seen in ages. Thank you.

      (-5.88, -6.46) Check out The Flypaper Theory, a group blog in Memphis, Tennessee

      by autoegocrat on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 03:56:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Desperate for leadership, strategy, execution (0+ / 0-)

      Anybody see the piece in the NYT yesterday, and editorial today, about Republicans using calls for censure and impeachment to rally their base?  Would be great to have an analysis of just how much their base has shrunk (vs. approval ratings of the president).  My fear is that if Feingold is stirring up a hornet's nest, what exactly is the strategy to insure that the right Republicans get stung?  NYT has been pretty disgusting during this winter of our discontent, but raised interesting issue yesterday:

      With the Republican base demoralized by continued growth in government spending, undiminished violence in Iraq and intramural disputes over immigration, some conservative leaders had already begun rallying their supporters with speculation about a Democratic rebuke to the president even before Mr. Feingold made his proposal.

      "Impeachment, coming your way if there are changes in who controls the House eight months from now," Paul Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer, declared last month in an e-mail newsletter.

      Editorial today makes a lot of sense.  Is basically sympathetic to Feingold, but suggests different tactic:

      We'd be applauding Mr. Feingold if he'd proposed creating a bipartisan panel to determine whether the domestic spying operation that Mr. Bush has acknowledged violates the 1978 surveillance law, as it certainly seems to do. The Senate should also force the disclosure of any other spying Mr. Bush is conducting outside the law. (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has strongly hinted that is happening.)

      So in sum, we need not only leadership from Feingold and others, we need a strategy, and we need some skilled folks to (communicate!) and execute it!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site