This Is Where I Came In (Dem Party-wise)

I was almost on board with the electability thing as far as Kerry was concerned.

I'm a Dean supporter and will vote for him in the primary in March if he's still in the race or not, but I was getting a little easier about holding my nose and voting for Kerry if he's the nominee while ignoring:

      Kerry's coziness with special interest money
         Connection with Torricelli and Gibbs in the Osama Iowa ad

       Vote enabling Bush to invade Iraq

       Vote enacting the Patriot Act

and other things I've heard that I find troubling...

I'll probably still vote Dean in the primary and Kerry (if he's the nominee) in November. But reading this article someone posted a link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42676-2004Feb14?language=printer

 to in Trapper John's thread on the main page has reminded me...these are the Democrats we're talking about.

Dean and his campaign took me to a remembered place of values and ideals which I first associated with  the Democratic party when I was growing up. Responsible for Viet Nam, sure. But also associated with the best of America: human rights and dignity, compassion and standing up and fighting like hell to make things right. Dems were the party of the working class, the underclass. Repubs were the party hugging corporate influence and the affluent.

Dean made me forget for a moment the party I'm dealing with here and now. You'd think after thirty years of electoral practice I''d be sharper than this...

This Washington Post article is essentially a discussion where Kerry spokespeople, Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi map out the Democratic  platform for the coming election.

Parts of it that stuck out for me were these:

In a nod to the party's more conservative members, especially those in the South, Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said there is broad agreement to play down gun control and other cultural issues.

Ah, Zell Miller's defection stings, doesn't it?

So much for attacking head to head on the guns, gays and God coding the Repubs use to hold on to the South as Dean wanted to do, neutralizing it's deceptions with an economic message of how the Repub policies screw NASCAR dads and their families.

Understandable. It's a broad expansive project that would have to happen over a period of YEARS and through many election cycles. But it's still disappointing to see the Dems not even plant one small flag here.

But if we don't hold or gain seats in the south this time around, THEN can we try something like Dean proposed? What is the risk? It seems we pay an awfully high idealogical price for crumbs here...

Also, so much for the idea that Kerry is a more progressive  Dem than Dean who had more "conservative" stands on guns. I  guess, in a way, Kerry CAN have it both ways: he's more liberal on gun issues than Dean but the campaign will be staying tactfully silent on that so what difference does it make?

According to the article,

The result: Voters this year likely will be presented with two clear, but not dramatically different, approaches to solving the nation's domestic problems, ranging from failing schools to soaring drug costs.

That's the old Democratic party I know and hold in contempt...clearly different, but (whispering now) just not too much....

Democratic officials say this split-the-difference policy approach reflects the party's nascent November strategy of stoking its base, already aggressively anti-Bush, but also appealing to swing voters as Clinton did in 1992 and 1996. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean's approach of playing to liberal activists with confrontational ideas such as eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts has been largely rejected by voters and most members of Congress.

Kerry, Daschle and Pelosi said they are confident that Democratic liberals, moderates and conservatives will remain so united in their loathing of Bush that the policy disputes that have long divided the party will cease or at least quiet to a whisper. They point to one constant in polling of voters in primaries and caucuses: Democrats across the board are more concerned about electability than ideological purity.

And then there's this priceless (and unfortunate) quote from a Kerry aide:

"The political reality of being out of power . . . means people will swallow things they usually wouldn't," said Steve Elmendorf, a senior aide to Kerry.

Wonderfully honest but a little too tough to...digest so soon after the idealism of the primaries...

Assuming Kerry wins the nomination, party leaders said, the Massachusetts senator will have two distinct advantages in keeping Democrats in Congress united behind him: his long record of Senate service and his political wild card in congressional dealings, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Kennedy can help keep liberals on the reservation when Kerry reaches for the center in the general election, Democrats say. "What Senator Kerry wants to do is to harmonize this message, so it's working for the Senate, working for the House and working for [himself]," Kennedy said.

That's what I keep forgetting. A candidate needs to worry about keeping the other guys in his party in Washington happy first. Silly me. I kept thinking it was about you and me and the other little guys going to the polling places and sending in our little checks.

The Democratic nominee will inherit a congressional party that has been slow to adopt a pugilistic minority mentality but has shown signs of starting to fight  as one in the aftermath of the 2002 elections, when they lost seats in both chambers.

See? When Dean is 'confrontational' that's something we need to stamp out! When it's the party adopting a fighting tone,,,well, that's what we've been waiting for!

Thanks, guys, I needed to see this. This was my morning after wake up call. Basking in the dreamy eyed idea that the Democratic party stands for the values of my youth  which Howard  Dean--that centrist from Vermont--awakened has been like a rowdy and wonderful week long party.

Reading this and knowing I will be probably be voting Dem for president in the Fall is like waking up with one doozy of a hangover...

•  The Democratic Party

  Lately has approached elections like kids do when they play the 'Pick a number between one and ten" game: the other player picks seven, so you pick six, thereby covering more of the field.

  The Democratic Party seems to figure that by staying just a little ways left of Bush, it can pick up all the moderate votes that are a little further left of Bush.

  Seems like a good idea, but people are turned off by the lack of principle it betrays.

  by Slade on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:09:33 PM PDT

  •  Fact is...

    It doesn't work...never has.

    by Chicken Little on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:17:26 PM PDT

    •  Never has? Sure it has.

      
      It worked quite well for Clinton in 1996.  That was exactly what Dick Morris' strategy was all about.  "Triangulation", welfare reform, deficit reduction and all that.

      Ditto in 1992, when Clinton made a big deal out of being a "New Democrat", viz his support for the death penalty, tax cuts, "New Covenant" (i.e., responsibilities to go with entitlements), etc.  

      It's not all that different from Eisenhower, either -- he really didn't challenge the New Deal much.  Or Nixon on domestic policy.  

      "Us too, but less extreme and without the warts" is a perfectly viable and successful strategy.  True, the presidents who get remembered tend to be those who broke some china -- FDR, Reagan -- but coopting the other side's agenda and stealing away the center is a tried and true strategy.

      by dburbach on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:31:41 PM PDT

      •  Clinton is Clinton

        Reference re-hashed argument No. 822 - Bill Clinton is a once-in-a-lifetime political phenomenon.  Without Bill Clinton, where has DLC-style politics left us in the modern GOP "Winner Eats Loser's Babies" tactics?  Without control of the White House, without control of the Senate, without control of the House, etc.

        by Vet 4 Dean on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:37:58 PM PDT

        •  Triangulation

          Really, triangulation cannot go on indefinitely.

          Strong and principled leadership will always be relevant to the life of this country and the prosperity of its citizens.  If that's "progressive whining," let me be called a whiner.

          Kushner's comments in this thread have a grain of truth, but still seem awfully self-serving.  I somehow doubt the founding fathers would agree with him - but then again, it seems I'm outing myself as naive, with that comment.  

          by NYCO on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:51:44 PM PDT

      •  Really?

        1992. there was Ross Perot that split the Republican vote
        1996. - Dole? A very weak candidate going against a very strong encumbent.

        by Chicken Little on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:39:49 PM PDT

        •  Exit pollsters

          IIRC, Perot supporters told exit pollsters that they would vote for Clinton and Bush in about equal numbers if Perot hadn't run.

          by Carl Ballard on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:45:16 PM PDT

          •  Clinton won Montana

            tell me that would still have happened had Perot not run.

            by DaveOinSF on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 09:42:55 PM PDT

        •  Clinton "strong"? Not in 1995

          
          Clinton became a strong incumbent after doing all of that Morris-led triangulation.

          He got clobbered in the 1994 elections.  Was written off as irrelevant.  Approval ratings were in the tank.  In the spring of 1995, all the money was that he was a certain one-termer -- with one of the big negatives on him being that he was "too liberal".

          Things got turned around largely by coopting the GOP message, which was made much easier by the fact that the Gingrich club overplayed their hand and scared people.  True, having Dole on the ticket hurt, but with a decent candidate it still would have been a Clinton win, just not a landslide.  Clinton did an amazing turnaround, and "triangulation" was a big part of it.

          As for 1992, it would have been close without Perot and Clinton's charms, but, a more liberal Democrat would have almost certainly done worse than Clinton, not better.

          And, Gore would have won in 2000 had it not been for the aftereffects of Clinton scandals, Nader, or Florida election screw-ups.

          by dburbach on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:57:13 PM PDT

        •  Impact of Perot 1992

          The exact breakdown of Perot voters in 1992 will never be known, but I've tweaked the numbers to see what might have happened if Perot voters had instead voted for Bush or Clinton.

          If the breakdown is 50/50, clearly the results do not change.

          If the breakdown is 53/47, then Bush wins Georgia and New Hampshire.

          If the breakdown is 55/45, then Bush also wins Ohio and Montana.

          If the breakdown is 60/40, then Bush also wins Colorado, Nevada and New Jersey.

          If the breakdown is 67/33, then Bush also wins Connecticutt, Iowa, Kentucy, Maine, and Wisconsin, and wins the presidency.

          Clearly, the breakdown in Perot voters nationwide would not necessarily be uniform...they could more heavily skew towards Bush in Ohio than they do in New Jersey, but that gets too complicated.

          by DaveOinSF on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 10:57:37 PM PDT

      •  No, it hasn't

        When Clinton took office in January 1993, the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the majority of State Houses and Governorships.

        by S in Mich on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 10:10:30 PM PDT

•  Tony Kushner had it right

  In an interview in Mother Jones, he said the following:

  MJ: What about the Democratic Party? Can it effectively oppose Bush?

  TK: I have said this before, and I'll say it again: Anyone that the Democrats run against Bush, even the appalling Joe Lieberman, should be a candidate around whom every progressive person in the United States who cares about the country's future and the future of the world rallies. Money should be thrown at that candidate. And if Ralph Nader runs -- if the Green Party makes the terrible mistake of running a presidential candidate -- don't give him your vote. Listen, here's the thing about politics: It's not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this.

  The GOP has developed a genius for falling into lockstep. They didn't have it with Nixon, but they have it now. They line up behind their candidate, grit their teeth, and help him win, no matter who he is.

  MJ: You're saying progressives are undone by their own idealism?

  TK: The system isn't about ideals. The country doesn't elect great leaders. It elects fucked-up people who for reasons of ego want to run the world. Then the citizenry makes them become great. FDR was a plutocrat. In a certain sense he wasn't so different from George W. Bush, and he could have easily been Herbert Hoover, Part II. But he was a smart man, and the working class of America told him that he had to be the person who saved this country. It happened with Lyndon Johnson, too, and it could have happened with Bill Clinton, but we were so relieved after 12 years of Reagan and Bush that we sat back and carped.

  In a certain sense, Bush was right when he called the anti-war demonstrations a "focus group." We went out on the street and told him that we didn't like the war. But that was all we did: We expressed an opinion. There was no one in Congress to listen to us because we were clear about why they couldn't listen. Hillary Clinton was too compromised, or Chuck Schumer -- and God knows they are. But if people don't pressure them to do better, we're lost.

  Kushner makes a good point that purity of principle gets you nowhere without the political power to do something about it. If Dean handles this next phase well, he could establish himself and his campaign as a kingmaker in the dem party. If he flails around until the end, he could end his ability to shape the future in the near term and possibly longer.

  I always thought that if Nader would've struck a deal with Gore then thrown his support behind him, Gore cold've won New Hamsphire and the presidency. Nader would have had a voice in the direction of this country and we would have had the most progressive presidency in a long time. I hope Dean does not repeat Nader's mistake.

  by cvcobb01 on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:32:38 PM PDT

  •  I Prefer to Call it Passion

    Rather than purity.

    I don't think passion and pragmatism must be mutually exclusive in the political process.

    I've chuckled when some people around here call Dean supporters 'too pure'.

    I support Dean and to do so I have to shift 'rightward' from two important  personal stands: gun control and capital punishment. I feel passionate about his message but I know if he was ever elected I would almost certainly differ strongly with somethng or other he did in office every month. Nature of the beast, politics.

    It isn't just his policies I admire. It's his promotion of citizen engagement and his enactment of it in his campaign. It's his challenge of us as voters to do some of the heavy lifting.

    What breaks my heart is that the Democrats have demanded I vote time and again for the last thirty years of my electoral life for candidates I found marginal with positions I couldn't always stomach.

    And now I see from this WaPo article, it is even more cynically institutionalized in their game plan again in 2004. Sad, sad.

    by zuzu on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 11:41:23 PM PDT

•  Legitimate opposition

  The line between the parties becomes so blurred. What happened to legitimate opposition? When the nominee ratified the opponent's agenda... Yes there are many differences, but I guess many of them won't be magnified during the general election. We don't want Al From to feel uncomfortable!

  by MichaelPH on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:34:35 PM PDT

•  Shallow

  Former Vermont governor Howard Dean's approach of playing to liberal activists with confrontational ideas such as eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts has been largely rejected by voters and most members of Congress.

  This sentence alone clearly illustrates the shallow understanding of Dean's candidacy that the Beltway has had.  "Playing to liberal activists"  - right.  As if Dean hadn't been a severe deficit hawk his entire time in Vermont.

  by NYCO on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:35:36 PM PDT

  •  Irony

    From what I understand the "liberal activists" in Vermont were not exactly fans of Dean while he was governor.  

    by Stevo on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:41:05 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    There were so many things in this article that infuriated/saddened me. That was another one.

    To me, so much in this article epitomizes that 'Washington culture' the Dean campaign was speaking about.

    Reading the Kerry/ Daschle/Pelosi plans and how irrelevant they seem to things I and my neighbors have been talking about the last couple months in this campaign....we are so out of touch with one another...upstate New York and inside the Beltway.

    by zuzu on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 11:45:45 PM PDT

•  Where's the tip jar?

  ??

  by MichaelPH on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 08:37:16 PM PDT

  •  oops!

    I'm still new at this diary business...

    You can rate me...(gulp) here if anyone is still looking in...

    by zuzu on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 12:00:00 AM PDT

•  I have a hangover too

  But it was a giddy experience for us that haven't been involved in politics.  but it is a no-win game and I also believed that we carped at Clinton too much and did not back him much when needed.  And the same with Gore -- where was his support no matter what you thought of him as a campaigner.  He was our guy and we should have come out in droves for him.

  And I beleive we should come out in droves for Kerry -- in November.  and Dean should talk to people about the dem party re future plans and see where it takes him.

  If the dem party insiders reject him as is rumored, then Dean, Gore, Bradley, Carter, should form a think tank like the republicans and do policy statements and discussion groups of certain issues.

  I do not want to lose his voice.

  by GrandmaJ on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 09:45:53 PM PDT

  •  Coming Out for Kerry

    I live in a safe state, but I am voting for whoever the Dem  nominee is in the GE.

    That will be ABB defiance against the GOP.

    I'd love to see the DFA forces morph into a powerful bloc in the Dem party...maybe build up for another run next time and in the meantime, start helping progressive Dem candidates in the House, Senate and state houses. Heck, even at the city and county level, who knows?

    I'm also still feeling that raging headache and nausea just at this moment toward the Dems and this game plan...so, maybe later...  : )

    by zuzu on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 11:51:26 PM PDT

•  while we...

  think of mushy triangulation ideas, the GOP has been thinking big for 3 decades now, and their relentless supply-side, laissez-faire, neo con wars are now a reality. A decade ago, there is no way in hell a Voinivich or Snowe would have voted for a Bush tax cut in the middle of a war, but such has the discourse shifted right with barely a wimper from the Dems. very pathetic. we have been reduced to balancing the budget, "saving Social Security" lockbox, in contrast to our historic legacy of econonic growth based on deficit spending/social investment. sigh. in the 80s, Gingrich vowed to purge all those GOPers who wanted a "welfare-lite" state. they've largely succeeded while "tax cut-lite" Dems still play by the GOP rules...

  by ihlin on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 10:08:47 PM PDT

•  Dean and guns

  Umm, is it just me, or wasn't Dean the one who was gonna de-emphasize culture in the South and woo people with his pro-gun stances?

  by sip1983 on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 10:51:30 PM PDT

•  Will we try this failed strategy again in 2008?

  I  guess, in a way, Kerry CAN have it both ways.

  Yes, John Kerry, the master of having everything both ways.  The man is a total piece of shit who doesn't deserve our votes, let alone those of moderates and swing voters.  All he's going to succeed in doing is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  George W. Bush is the worst president of modern times and there are only two men who can lose to him Al Gore 2.000 and John Kerry.

  My real question is how many more defeats are going to have to occur before Democrats wake up.  There's a difference betnween being confrontational and being aggressive.  The Washington Post is a GOP propaganda piece, so of course they ignore that.  Dean's message was not to be ashamed of being a Democrat and to be vocal about common sense ideas and pragmatic ideas.  

  Kerry's message is... well, what exactly is his message?  Anyone?  Oh yeah, he served in Vietnam.................................

  by Asak on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 11:26:38 PM PDT