... news... comment... bush report... gorewatch... garlic... mail... about us...

DEMS DIVIDED Dems Need To Feed Their Base "There should be no confusion about why Democrats lost ground in an agonizingly close 2002 election. Led by the president, who raised record sums and personally drove the late surge, Republicans ran a ruthlessly efficient campaign. The White House rolled out the Iraq debate to define an election about national security. Republicans shamelessly dressed themselves up as reformers on the domestic issues -- prescription drugs, corporate accountability, Social Security -- that they feared would be most damaging. They mobilized millions via independent ads, used to blur party differences and paid for by corporate allies. And they poured resources into getting out their vote, using an institutional capacity that far outstrips anything on the Democratic side.... "Republicans pander shamelessly to the demands of their base -- the radical right and rapacious corporate interests -- while offering a "compassionate conservative" face to the country. They manage this despite the yawning gulf between the reactionary agenda of that base and the values and needs of "mainstream America." They slip protections for drug companies and corporate tax avoiders into the homeland-security bill. They gut family planning and environmental and worker protections yet still offer a broad message about tax cuts and education for swing voters.... "Democrats did not counter this onslaught with a campaign focused on their base. Leaders hardly had a national message at all. They recruited anti-choice, pro-gun candidates for swing, conservative districts. They chose to stand with Bush on terrorism and Iraq because they didn't want to argue about national security. They failed to offer their own economic plan, instead carping about risks of recession. Senators in contested races even embraced the Bush tax cuts. The Senate majority was too divided to embrace real corporate accountability or pension reform, or even to pass a prescription-drug plan. Defense of Social Security was the oasis in an otherwise barren desert.... "Comprehensive polling on election day -- by Greenberg Quinlan for the Institute for America's Future and the Democracy Corps -- reports that Democrats did as well or better with moderates and independents in 2002 as they did in 1998 or 2000. But Republicans mobilized their base voters and Democrats did not.... An enduring majority for reform requires both. Democrats must rally to the causes, organizations, leaders and voters of the party base -- union workers, minorities, pro-choice women, environmentalists -- that are under relentless administration attack. But this need does not conflict with putting forth a bold and broad appeal that addresses both real security concerns and a working economy. Rather than doing both, Democrats did neither well.... "The DLC, launched as the voice of conservative, largely southern Democrats, claims its strategy [to move further to the right] will help Democrats win in conservative states. But Democrats would fare far better by following the advice of Kevin Phillips, the architect of a Republican southern strategy that actually worked -- that of Richard Nixon. Phillips argues that the question isn't whether the Democratic Party should move left or right -- the straw man the DLC poses -- but whether the party is prepared to do battle for the vast majority against the powerful few. To do this, he argues, progressives must stop biting their tongues to protect endangered Democrats in conservative or swing districts. Instead, they should organize themselves independently to challenge the president's politics of privilege, put forth a bold agenda for change and take the gloves off against the right. Democrats might even stop shooting at each other and start aiming at the remarkably reactionary threat that Bush now poses." --Robert Borsage AmPro 01.13.03 Dems Need To Jump On Bush's La. Failure On Saturday media pundits were calling this race the beginning of Bush's 2004 campaign for re-election. His highly publicized last-minute visit to this conservative Southern state was meant to show off his popularity and the strength of his political coattails. With lots of national GOP cash, Bush's mother, his father, his Vice-President, Rudy for the anti-terrorists, Bob Dole for the vets, ex-mayor Flynn of Boston for the anti-abortionists, Ralkph Reed for the Christian Conservatives, Karen Hughes for the media, and the "72-hour task force" getting out the door-to-door vote that recently took the Georgia elections for the Repubs, just to name this week's visitors, Terrell had forged into a lead expected to carry her over the top. For some reason, it didn't work. Now, what will the media pundits say? Landrieu had been calling the Repub offensive an attempt to turn a local election into a popularity contest for Bush and his agenda. The Dem senator kept on the local issues, rallied the large bloc of African-American voters in the state (she won 87% in November), and attacked Bush's economic policies, while keeping to the moderate center so as not to lose her white minority (she won 30% in November). Perhaps three weeks of Bush's ruthless actions on the domestic front since the elections in mid-November made Louisiana voters uncomfortable with the political dictatorship and arrogance that results when one party controls the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the media. Perhaps this Landrieu election will mark the moment when the American people drew the line in the sand and said to Bush, "Enough !" Let's hope so. But now it's up to the Dems to drive the point home. You just know the Repubs and the media pundits will be calling the election of a Dem senator in a conservative state a local issue with no reflection on Bush or his policies, even though that's exactly what Bush tried to make it. It will be up to the Dems to point to the Bush failure. Dems on the Sunday talk shows need to make the point loud and clear. --Politex, 12.07.02 Jefford's Call To Arms And The Refusal Of Far-Left Fundamentalism An op-ed in the NYT Saturday by Senator Jeffords lays down the gauntlet against Bush and his administration, flush from their midterm victories that resulted in Republican control of Congress. "If the new, razor-thin Republican majority abuses its power and moves forward with an extreme agenda that overlooks the concerns of the many and benefits only the privileged few, there will be repercussions," Jeffords writes. In the few short weeks since the elections, there has been nothing done by the BushAdmin to suggest otherwise. The passage of the Homeland Security Bill packed full of Republican pork of the most obnoxious kind, such as the protection of drug companies against law suits by citizens, in the name of national defense; the Senate approval of judges with far right credentials; the continuation of the creation of the Pentagon's privacy Doomsday Machine, administered by a convicted Iran-Contra member of the previous Bush administration; the appointment of a man with conflicts of interest, who is best at hiding uncomfortable truths of govermnet, to oversee a commission expected to uncover the uncomfortable truths of 9/11; the cutting off of unemployment benefits to nearly 100,000 workers three days after Christmas; the refusal to provide just raises to civilian federal workers; the dismantling of fed clean air protections. And this is just the lull before the Republican storm of the January Congress. Count on a Republican abuse of power as Bush and his administration move their extreme agenda forward as if a razor-thin victory gives them a mandate to do their worst. But count on the considerable propaganda powers of the BushAdmin to hide their actions under the cloak of moderate language, lies, and distortions. In order to do so, however, two forces need to be cooperative, the media and the citizens; and right now the majority of both groups are acting like codependents, willingly believing falsehoods and looking the other way. The other day on CNN, for example, senior political reporter Judy Woodruff discussed the divided Dems and their future, asking guests on both sides of the aisle how the Dems would be able to deal with the "moral issue" of the citizen's right to bear arms. Each time she asked the question, she used "moral issue." That's like calling estate taxes "death taxes," which is another Republican code term of distortion. As for our citizens, a recent NYT poll has the majority approving of Bush but disapproving of his policies, policies even members of his cabinet have been unable to stomach. (What will it take for folks to understand that the policies are the man?) Both majorities of the media and our citizens have one thing in common, a tradition of wanting to believe what an American president tells them, even when they know that it's not true. Too many have too much personally, economically or ideologically invested in keeping the lies, distortions, and abuses of Bush and his administration afloat. As we go from crisis to crisis and scandal to scandal, and the Bush propaganda machine absorbs the blows and twists them around into a positive distortion of reality or an excuse for another extreme policy, it appears that the threshold for reprecussion is rising higher and higher. As a country, it appears we are becoming numb to the distortions and to Bush's political extremes, as he and his administration begin their planning for laws, policies, and agendas that will reach far into the future and control our behavior long after they are gone from the D.C. field of battle. By then, of course, it will be too late to do much about them. What will it take for the "reprecussions" that Jeffords writes of to take place while there's still time? When will we reach our threshhold of disgust and do something meaningful about it? Shouldn't we begin by uniting the various strands of the progressive movement into one powerful bloc? It is not just nor it it productive for the fundamentalists on the far left to continue to punish those of us who want to form a coalition of progressive voices with their purist negativism and tacit approval of the suffering of average Americans under Bush. --Jerry Politex, Bush Watch, 12.2.02 Looking At 2004: Notes From The Radical Center by Peter Pflaum The Democrats (or any party) not only need a real, tried and true message but a true blue credible and attractive messenger. (Mrs. Clinton, John McCain, George Mitchell, Warren Rudman, Colin Powell, Sam Nunn? Rather a small field. A progressive republican would be great. The ladies from Maine as VP's? The reality is that the secret primary is well underway - whoever can raise 30 million by next summer (to buy time and build organization for the spring of 2004) and survive by winning the first handful of primaries goes into the front-loaded primaries with the BIG MO (money); the party really has little to say about it. John Kerry is a big maybe - there is no way to raise 30 million and say anything useful at the same time, except McCain's "peoples crusade" with a friendly press. Meanwhile, Karl Rove will not sit on the sidelines, but will mess with the Dens' primaries. Kerry is the second Democrat to make the prez move, joining Vermont Gov. Howard Dean who filed papers this past spring. Other Democrats considering throwing their hats in the ring: former Vice President Al Gore, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri, Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina, (who could raise the money) Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, (who knows where the money is) Joe Biden of Delaware, and Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, all fairly to completely hopeless. "I think the field is wide open at this point," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, told CNN. Bayh, who has ruled himself out as a presidential contender in 2004, called Kerry "a very able man," but he ducked the question of who would be the best Democrat to challenge President Bush. Because there is none. If the Dems had a program, winning or, more likely, losing would still be useful. There are no really practical programs out there. WHY ? Money and because the political system is so tied up and ineffective by design that real reform is almost impossible, except for knee jerk and sometimes poorly thought out responses to crisis: airport security, the "War on Terrorism," corporation reforms, school reform, etc. Something better than nothing (we hope) but clearly not part of a structured long term plan within the budget. The real issues are complex, long term, require decades of solid work, (not quick fixes and slogans in 15 second commercials) and our system is not up to it. A week is a long time in politics, the agenda changes, then changes again, 24/7. How about starting with a real platform committee (manifesto) and a party conference of elected officials, every year, late in the summer, say, where the policy wonks can really develop long-term strategies that stick over time and mean something in actual commitment? Real legislative proposals in health delivery and medical finance, energy, environmental programs, military, retirement, economic growth and stability, PRO free markets, PRO business, PRO low taxes and tax reform including the VAT, PRO strong restraints on expenditures, PRO military transformation and research and development in defense and homeland security, PRO private savings and retirement, PRO rational public finance, PRO rational state or regional solutions, using the lab of democracy. Since the federal establishment is tied in knots, let the states free, let the Governors rule. You will know if the effort is worthwhile if there are real fights and counter attacks. You can't please all the people, all the time. It would be real if there is a budget resolution attached, what gets cut as well as what grows. THE THIRD WAY FOLKS is the only way. Not liberal good feeling and big government - not phony companionate conservatives cross- dressing to hold the center, not GOP lite or New Deal lite, but for real, practical, going with what works, small and effective government, modern management and technology, the "bridge to the future," up, up, and away. Gore had it, lost it, maybe he could find it again? Hard to believe. The party program should have the clear support of the party caucus in congress, the leadership in the committees of congress, the presidential candidates (I'm dreaming) and the governors. NOT the flim flam of most party platforms. The committees and their staff along with the Washington think tank establishment and the governors' conference. Brooking, the Urban Institute, RAND, could put together realistic programs, white papers with actual legislation Then advertise that, write about that, analysze that, focus on that. Actual programs and real actions, saying if you vote for the program you might actually get something done. What an original idea ! A party with a program ! Programs that work. The best welfare is a good economic policy of stable growth based on prudent fiscal policies. Programs that work for health care, social security, energy, traffic, sprawl, national defense, security. Dems don't have them now, only rhetoric. Big challenges in search of big ideas: the aging of America and the baby-boom retirement; exploding health costs, insuring the uninsured, and providing long-term care; balancing work and family; and achieving energy independence....Real tough choices, not just pandering to everyone and their sister. You can't have a political party and program if every thing is for sale in the desperate attempt to raise money. --12.04.02 Green Party Leader Supports Our Long-Stated Position, Work Within Dems, Vote Dem In 2004 Or Bush Wins by Ronnie Dugger Ronnie Dugger, founding editor of the Texas Observer, is co-founder of the Alliance for Democracy and presented Nader to the Green Party Conventions that nominated him in 1996 and 2000. Given the GOP sweep in the midterm elections, progressives and populists must position themselves to play a pivotal role in the next presidential contest. As we demonstrated in 2000, we are a fragmented political force, divided between those who supported, however reluctantly, the Democratic choice, Al Gore, and those who backed the Green Party's Ralph Nader. But the Bush disaster, compounded now by the meltdown of the Democratic Party on November 5, is an emergency. We cannot afford another division in our ranks that will bring about the election of George W. Bush in 2004.... Bush must be beaten in 2004. Not only the nation, but the world, depends on it. If we divide our votes for President again between the Democratic nominee and Ralph Nader, we will very probably help elect Bush. Therefore, Nader should not run for President as a Green in 2004.... It is very clear--who can persuasively deny it?--that the more votes Nader gets in 2004, the likelier it is that Nader and his supporters will elect Bush. As obvious as all of this is to me--and to at least some others who voted for Nader--evidently it may not be obvious to him. This June I called on my friend Ralph in his offices at the Carnegie Foundation building in Washington to discuss with him why I believe he must not run again. A shocked conviction is growing among some people who backed him, I said, that as we love our country and care about the world, we must do everything we can to beat Bush.... To beat Bush, the question we must decide now is not what candidate to run but what vehicle we can use to win the presidency in 2004. It cannot be the Green Party. "You know you can't win as a Green in 2004," I said to Ralph. The lamentable truth, but the truth, is that the only vehicle with which the voters can beat Bush for President is the Democratic Party. There is no other.... The point, I said, is to get a strong progressive candidate and to get our forces behind that candidate and a progressive platform. Among many other things, it should include a commitment to have the party fight for instant-runoff voting (IRV), which at one stroke would end the third-party "spoiler" threat to the major parties and would free citizens to vote for their favorite candidates without helping to elect candidates whose views are diametrically opposed to theirs....Even if the candidate backed by the progressive coalition does not ultimately take the nomination, this effort alone will contribute to restoring progressives as a permanent force to be reckoned with inside the party.... Otherwise, I said to Ralph, we will look around in 2003 and see the usual marquee sellouts running for the Democratic nomination and Ralph running for the Greens, a political configuration that seems deliberately designed to elect Bush....[Nader] is not given to saying, "Let's elect Bush so the Democrats will return to the people," but that turned out to be the real-world meaning of his 2000 candidacy, and it would again in 2004. Ralph persists in advancing the view that it does not matter (or does not matter enough to matter) whether a Democrat or a Republican sits in the White House.... We should now launch a two-year drive for the moral recovery of the Democratic Party and, hence, of the United States. Bush, riding war and the patriotic psychosis he is using our White House to foment, may win whatever we do. But we should not be for Nader knowing that it will help elect Bush. In the emergency that has materialized as if in a nightmare, we may not do that. We no longer have the right. for the industrial strength version... Bush Watch is a non-advocacy site paid for by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen. Editorial Policy: All entries are dated and documented as needed. Text (c) Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting. Duration of working link not under our control. Updated daily at various times. Send all e-mail to Politex.